The Paradigm Project - General Discussion & Idea Hub [Archive]

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-16, 06:23 PM

"Dreams remake the world anew every night!"
- Sandman, Dream of a Thousand Cats

Welcome, one and all, to the Paradigm Project, a D20 system.

Does that above statement sound vague? It probably should; the Paradigm Project began simply as a magic system replacement for D&D 3.5, and has since evolved into its present scope, something that the (scattered and intermittent) design team only realized recently. I, Djinn_in_Tonic, and various others continue (when able) to put hard work and thought into this project.

We would like you, the community, to give us anything you're willing to give; ideas, fluff, crunch, whatever. We need everything, and we need it bad. If something on the agenda strikes you as interesting or worthwhile, contact the Design Lead for that particular aspect; they'll put you to work. You are of course, always welcome to post ideas in this thread.

The Old Agenda
That said, the following is on our agenda:

- The Ritualist, our first class/spellcasting system, is nearly complete! However, the class abilities need a total rehaul (we were very high on something when we designed it) and we don't have nearly enough Rituals. Incidentally, I've been considering replacing the Sandman subparadigm with the dream/illusion-based Somnomancer. Design Lead: Djinn_in_Tonic

- The Channeler is still in its formative stages, and could use ideas, theories, and opinions. Design Lead: Djinn_in_Tonic and Lord_Gareth.

- Technomancers continue to rape our brains! Someone save us! Design Lead: Lord_Gareth

- "Nonmagical" classes need to be addressed - expect a dissertation from myself at a later date. Any ideas, opinions, questions, et cetera would be dearly appreciated. No design lead as of yet.

- Our poster setting, Under Northern Skies, is also in its fomative stages. Contact Ender Chant to volunteer!

Our Current Agenda
- Looks like we're redesigning the core concept of D20; what it means to have a "class". To volunteer for this revolutionary redesign, talk to Djinn_in_Tonic.

- Under Northern Skies is still all systems go. Talk to Ender Chant if you want to help design the Paradigm Project's first campaign setting!

- We're going to need people to make spells, technology, and all kinds of other things as we concieve of them. To volunteer as a team leader, get ahold of Lord_Gareth or Djinn_in_Tonic.

- Anything else you can think of? Artwork? PEACHing? Playtesting? Contact Lord_Gareth or Djinn_in_Tonic to volunteer alternative services!

The Design Teams

Character Progression and Basic Mechanics, headed up by the illustrious Djinn_in_Tonic!
Members List
-
-
-

Under Northern Skies, a campaign setting being designed by Ender Chant!
Members List
-
-
-

While you are, of course, welcome to participate on this thread, you will also find plenty of ideas and all of our information to-date on our forum here (http://plothook.net/RPG/forumdisplay.php?f=1477), on the esteemed Plothook.net. Go there. Love it. Live it.

The Paradigm Project wants you! Let's get crackin'!

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-16, 06:28 PM

Why the "Paradigm" Project?
Originally, because the Project drew ideas and themes from Mage: the Ascension and Mage: the Awakening, both excellent games by White Wolf. However, the Project has since evolved away from that.

The name, however, has stuck around and become a pervasive theme in the fluff; power stems directly from belief in this vision of the multiverse. It may be possible to have a world or cosmos which uses all of the material presented in the finished product; it is equally possible that the dominant paradigm on a given world rules out the existence of, say, Ritualists. The choices are, as always, left up to the Dungeon Master.

So, why tie belief into power? For one thing, it's a major and recurring theme in the real world. People with strong convictions find themselves in the spotlight, where they change the world. Aside from that, power-as-belief provides an internally-consistent way to balance the system's power. No longer need you hear the argument, "Well they're a wizard, of course they're stronger!" Even if a character believes that they are nothing more than a farmer boy who happened to find a legendary weapon, that strength of belief leads directly into power.

Aside from those points, it allows us to have all kinds of fun with world-design and the game's mechanics. In D&D, it makes no sense to survive an eighty-story fall, no matter what level you are. In the Paradigm Project, though, it just might.

"Non-Magical" Classes and Concepts - Boned at Birth
I don't need to beat a dead horse as far as why fighters, barbarians, and other martial classes suffer mechanical problems when compared to spellcasters. However, the problem runs far, far deeper than simple shoddy mechanics; it cuts right down to the conceptual difference between "warrior" and "mage".

Magic can do anything. This idea has long been rooted in the public conciousness; magic's capabilities are limitless, the power of its practictioners potentially infinite. This kind of concepts lends power and utility to classes which stem from it.

Technological concepts have a similar benefit, for a similar reason; the public believes that, given enough time, machines could do anything. With the proper tools, a technological character can rival even the most powerful of mages.

And then you have a warrior, a character who makes his living either through war, assasination, freelance mercenary work - whatever. What does this character have available to them?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The archetype of a great warrior is someone who is only a warrior, and this expectation is what cripples classes which stem from the concept. Even in this modern, technological age, it happens all too often that a soldier returns home and can no longer function without an enemy. Warriors fight, and little else.

What does this mean for the Paradigm Project? It means that "warrior" concepts are going to be difficult. We are always going to have players which do not want to play a mage, or who draw inspiration from characters such as Conan, Drizzt Do'Urden, or the Hunter, but these players are owed the same opportunity for utility and use that the other players recieve for choosing different concepts. One option is to make "non-magical" classes NPC only, but this option leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and I'm certain it does for you as well.

The other option, unfortunately, involves limiting concepts; the holy warrior, for example, would be an example of a definitively martial concept with the potential for out-of-combat utility. So, too, a "chosen one", or one who weilds an artifact of legend. These concepts have the potential to be the equal of the mage or the inventor, but that means cutting out the mercenary, the soldier, and similar concepts.

Where do we draw the line?

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-16, 06:29 PM

-Also reserved, just in case-

lesser_minion

2010-01-16, 08:05 PM

I'm still thinking of ways to handle rituals - when I get the chance, I'll go through everything you already have and see if I can come up with anything useful.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-16, 08:05 PM

(we were very high on something when we designed it)

Perhaps true. But we had a lot of fun in the process. :smallbiggrin:

*****

Anyway, as Lord Gareth's go-to man and as (I guess) the second half of the twisted brain behind the project, here's a bit of what I've been thinking.

I feel that a greater definition of the core mechanics are needed: what rules, if any, we're overhauling (basic rolling and hit point mechanics could, I believe, use a twist in the new system, but I'll get into that in a later post if you're all interested in my thoughts), and how the classes will function.

I see two possibilities. Option 1 is a standard D&D level/class based system that goes from 1 to 20 in a nice, easy format. Option 2 is more of an Exalted/D&D hybrid, where the Paradigms sit on a separate level from the base hit point/attack mechanics, formatted in a large flowchart style that allows for greater customization within a Paradigm, and also allows for Paradigm crossovers.

The former is self-explanatory, but the latter could use some fleshing out. Paradigm abilities would be grouped by ability (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth...maybe more if we want different ability scores than standard D&D), and also perhaps by type (Ritual, Belief, and so forth). XP or level up "points" would allow you to purchase new abilities, provided you meet the requirements for them, giving us a much more modular and open "level" system.

Personally, I feel the latter would fit the Paradigm theme better, although it would be harder to implement and more complex to create. That said, I think I'd enjoy it more as a player, and find it more rewarding to create.

Thoughts?

lesser_minion

2010-01-16, 08:10 PM

If you're willing to replace every class, I'm not sure how much harder re-writing more fundamental elements of the system would be.

Fusing everything together into something more like nwod in terms of mechanics might be quite an interesting route.

If it's of any interest, Witchcraft goes for "everyone's magic". Magically insensitive characters don't have any real control over their Essence, while magically sensitive characters may be able to perform magic or do other cool things.

It also ties very nicely into the way Witchcraft vampires and spirits work.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-16, 08:14 PM

If you're willing to replace every class, I'm not sure how much harder re-writing more fundamental elements of the system would be.

Exactly my thoughts. I've always thought that the freedom to choose a path and later deviate from it that the White Wolf systems promote was superior to the d20 class system, although I find the d20 mechanics often easier to teach players (and easier to balance, as Xd10 leads to strange curves, especially with exploding dice thrown in). What I'm aiming for is an ideal between the two: a relatively class-less d20 system where, given the flavor we've based it on, a developing of belief in a certain direction leads immediately to rewards in that same sector.

lesser_minion

2010-01-16, 08:54 PM

Exactly my thoughts. I've always thought that the freedom to choose a path and later deviate from it that the White Wolf systems promote was superior to the d20 class system, although I find the d20 mechanics often easier to teach players (and easier to balance, as Xd10 leads to strange curves, especially with exploding dice thrown in). What I'm aiming for is an ideal between the two: a relatively class-less d20 system where, given the flavor we've based it on, a developing of belief in a certain direction leads immediately to rewards in that same sector.

Binomial isn't especially strange. Although 10-again creates a problem in that regard. I quite like dice pools when they aren't an attempt to make people roll six times per action (WFRP 3e, I'm looking at you).

The current plan I have for Starlight is to break everything up into six classes and let people build characters up from there. Characters can learn Forms, some of which are unique to a class. There are no penalties for cross-class Forms (although they can be harder to combine), and all of them are limited in very similar ways. However, different forms can be very different.

The basic difference between a Form and a 4e Power is that a Form represents an entire style of martial arts, a whole suite of spells, or a whole new set of benefits from praying. They generally can't be combined (especially in some cases where a form actually represents a summoned or fused monster).

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-01-16, 10:34 PM

Well, I've generally tended to like most magic systems that label their casters "channelers," so if you wouldn't mind laying out what you have on the Channeler so far I'll see if I have anything to contribute.

Mulletmanalive

2010-01-17, 06:13 AM

I actually redesigned my core mechanics for my own system refit, Mecha Victoriana. It worked by being skill based with long rituals to cast spells, then there were classes that allowed limited casting without preparation. The core casting mechanics may prove useful to you, if that's what you're after Ritual wise, though the version of the rules posted here are a little bit full of holes and don't include the altered spells i've been working on.

If these http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122664 suit your purposes, I did have certain thoughts on spontaneous casting, though i'm not entirely sure why; I don't like the concept and think that channellers should probably function like Fax' d20r Sorcerer.

PM me if you want anything.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 11:42 AM

I like your second idea, Djinn, if you're confident that you can create it without compromising flavor identity. That said, it looks like I have a few questions to answer:

- Ritualists are intended to fit the "wizard archetype", so to speak. Ritualists need time and sacrifice to unleash their effects, but when their magic goes off, it goes off with a bang. With great power, though, comes great sacrifice. You can find the current draft of the Ritualist here (http://plothook.net/RPG/showthread.php?t=14798).

- Channelers, in a sense, are their magic. Believing that they draw their magic from mighty bloodlines, ancient gods, or even philosiphies, Channeler effects are faster, cheaper, and weaker than those of the Ritualist. Magic bleeds over into everything they do, creating a fluid, dynamic playstyle. Think Hitomi, as depicted in Dead Fantasy, as an idea for a Genea Channeler. The discussion thread for the Channeler, including all current ideas for it, may be found here (http://plothook.net/RPG/showthread.php?t=17086).

As I said before, you folks can contribute anywhere; anything you come up with is work off of someone else's back, from a new hit point mechanic to a discussion on worldbuilding to anything. Asking Questions, at this point, would be an invaluable service.

That said: Gentlement, Ladies, We Have a Problem

"Non-Magical" Classes and Concepts - Boned at Birth
I don't need to beat a dead horse as far as why fighters, barbarians, and other martial classes suffer mechanical problems when compared to spellcasters. However, the problem runs far, far deeper than simple shoddy mechanics; it cuts right down to the conceptual difference between "warrior" and "mage".

Magic can do anything. This idea has long been rooted in the public conciousness; magic's capabilities are limitless, the power of its practictioners potentially infinite. This kind of concepts lends power and utility to classes which stem from it.

Technological concepts have a similar benefit, for a similar reason; the public believes that, given enough time, machines could do anything. With the proper tools, a technological character can rival even the most powerful of mages.

And then you have a warrior, a character who makes his living either through war, assasination, freelance mercenary work - whatever. What does this character have available to them?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The archetype of a great warrior is someone who is only a warrior, and this expectation is what cripples classes which stem from the concept. Even in this modern, technological age, it happens all too often that a soldier returns home and can no longer function without an enemy. Warriors fight, and little else.

What does this mean for the Paradigm Project? It means that "warrior" concepts are going to be difficult. We are always going to have players which do not want to play a mage, or who draw inspiration from characters such as Conan, Drizzt Do'Urden, or the Hunter, but these players are owed the same opportunity for utility and use that the other players recieve for choosing different concepts. One option is to make "non-magical" classes NPC only, but this option leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and I'm certain it does for you as well.

The other option, unfortunately, involves limiting concepts; the holy warrior, for example, would be an example of a definitively martial concept with the potential for out-of-combat utility. So, too, a "chosen one", or one who wields an artifact of legend. These concepts have the potential to be the equal of the mage or the inventor, but that means cutting out the mercenary, the soldier, and similar concepts.

Where do we draw the line?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 11:51 AM

I like your second idea, Djinn, if you're confident that you can create it without compromising flavor identity.

Define "flavor identity." I'm uncertain what you mean, and thus don't know how to address it. I suppose I could say that I'm aiming for something more fluid...a Ritualist, for example, who also uses Channeler magic, or a martial fighter who can, for instance, use the ritual Rouse the World Dragon, to make up a name at random. The classes themselves would probably be torn apart and put into these large, overarching "Paradigms," which I feel fits our concept better than the normal class system.

The other option, unfortunately, involves limiting concepts; the holy warrior, for example, would be an example of a definitively martial concept with the potential for out-of-combat utility. So, too, a "chosen one", or one who weilds an artifact of legend. These concepts have the potential to be the equal of the mage or the inventor, but that means cutting out the mercenary, the soldier, and similar concepts.

Where do we draw the line?[/spoiler]

Do we have to? Obviously at higher Paradigm levels even martial characters will creep into magical territory: the fighter is cleaving mountains in two, and whole armies might travel weeks out of their way if the alternative is meeting him in a narrow pass. At lower levels his effects are smaller, to be certain...but so are everyone's. The warriors sword is sharper because he believes in his weaponry, and his body resists blows because he cannot fall.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 11:55 AM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 11:59 AM

Well, when referring to flavor identity, I'm speaking more of the paradigms themselves; a Ritualist needs hard work and study to unlock their magic, whereas a Channeler flows. Combining the concepts isn't hard; I just want to make sure that the concepts themselves are solid.

As for your fighter example - great. He can cleave a mountain in half. Now he's faced with a logic puzzle. Or he has to haggle prices with an innkeeper. What happens?

The problem with most "martial" characters is that, once combat stops, they return to being packmules. We can balance combat until the sky rains fire, but that won't give them any additional utility, and utility is what I'm concerned about.

Ah. That's where my idea fits in. In a world powered by belief, the fighter can work outside combat by stepping slightly outside his combat Paradigm. Perhaps he picks up, for example, a teleportation ritual. It functions like a ritual does: the fighter might be simple concentrating incredibly hard rather than drawing some complex diagram, but, if his will is strong enough, he can bend the world to his whim.

We'd also eliminate the "Fighter vs. Mage" situation by, in essence, removing the classes. That fighter is just someone who decided to focus entirely on combat-centric Paradigms, and the Mage is someone who focused heavily on Rituals. You could easily hybridize the two without us having to create some complex dual-paradigm classes...

Xallace

2010-01-17, 12:01 PM

I always thought that the Negotiator advanced class from d20 modern was a great example of an awesome, non-magical warrior. You're a social buff, with astounding skill in the area of manipulating other's minds, but when the crap hits the fan you're a lightning draw and a crack shot.

Similarly, consider the Daredevil: You've got great acrobatic skill, vitality, and defensive ability that makes you rock combat, but mostly you've got the will and training to bust out a crazy, improvised maneuver in any situation. You're the one swinging chandeliers into the dragon's face, jumping off of castle towers onto barrel-rolling airships, and showing the adamantine door how leverage works.

I think something like that would help out melee classes, don't you?

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 12:10 PM

Ah. That's where my idea fits in. In a world powered by belief, the fighter can work outside combat by stepping slightly outside his combat Paradigm. Perhaps he picks up, for example, a teleportation ritual. It functions like a ritual does: the fighter might be simple concentrating incredibly hard rather than drawing some complex diagram, but, if his will is strong enough, he can bend the world to his whim.

We'd also eliminate the "Fighter vs. Mage" situation by, in essence, removing the classes. That fighter is just someone who decided to focus entirely on combat-centric Paradigms, and the Mage is someone who focused heavily on Rituals. You could easily hybridize the two without us having to create some complex dual-paradigm classes...

Certainly an interesting idea, but then I have to ask what each of the Paradigms is/means. The Ritualist, for example, was originally intended to be the formulaic mage; drawing circles of power, chanting the true names of unspeakable beings, theirs is the "science" of magic (a concept which so many fantasy authors miss entirely, the dumbasses). Your idea of focus is good, but how do we reward strong flavor with mechanics? If the Fighter is just standing there with a constipated look on his face for five rounds and then he teleports, how does the Mage, who had to learn all kinds of formulae and memorize motion afer motion, not lose his mind with rage?

lesser_minion

2010-01-17, 12:11 PM

I think the rules for conflicting paradigms need to be moved to the 'core' of the system - at the moment, different paradigms impact other paradigms in different ways, and it seems like it's either going to be unbalanced, confusing, or both.

I'm not sure how insane you really need technomancers to be from a fluff perspective either. I think you could get some pretty amazing technology out of just thinking that it will work if belief mattered.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 12:26 PM

Certainly an interesting idea, but then I have to ask what each of the Paradigms is/means. The Ritualist, for example, was originally intended to be the formulaic mage; drawing circles of power, chanting the true names of unspeakable beings, theirs is the "science" of magic (a concept which so many fantasy authors miss entirely, the dumbasses). Your idea of focus is good, but how do we reward strong flavor with mechanics? If the Fighter is just standing there with a constipated look on his face for five rounds and then he teleports, how does the Mage, who had to learn all kinds of formulae and memorize motion afer motion, not lose his mind with rage?

I'm unsure...just tossing ideas around here. :smallbiggrin:

Let me think...ever played Final Fantasy...um...10, I believe? The level up system is what I was sort of inspired by...

Every character has a "path" of sorts, that can be broken (allowing a character into another character's path) by the right items/abilities. For example, let's say we had the following Paradigms:

Tradition -- belief in ritual and tradition
Excellence -- belief in excellence through practice and study
Innate -- belief in self
Cosmic -- belief in the universe
Sacrifice -- belief in power through pain

We could have something like the following:

Tradition------Excellence
|dd\ddddddddddddddd/ddd|
|ddd\ddddddddddddd/dddd|
|dddddddCosmicdddddddd|
|dddd/ddddddddddd\ddddd|
|ddd/ddddddddddddd\dddd|
Sacrifice-----------Innate

Tradition and Innate would be opposites, as would Excellence and Sacrifice. By starting with any one, you could progress along the lines, eventually even reaching an opposite Paradigm. However, an Innate fighter (as non-magical as it gets) would have to progress through either Sacrifice, Excellence, or Cosmic in order to get the ritual-like abilities of Tradition.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 12:35 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 12:40 PM

@Djinn - An interesting concept. I fully approve - you may begin mechanical applications whenever you're ready.

Under your idea, do you expect the mechanics behind, say, Rituals to change? If not, we can still ask folks to develop the Traditions as they currently stand. What about the Subparadigms? How much of our current material will be subject to change?

None of it, some of it, or all of it. I imagine that subparadigms might have similar set-ups, actually. Technomancy, for example, might exist opposite of Naturalism, to make up an opposite off the top of my head...perhaps bridged by a connection through Elemental.

Basically, we'll need the following:

-At least 5 major Paradigms like those I mentioned above. Are they good? Do we need more? Did I miss anything?

-A list of current Subparadigms we want under, say, one major Paradigm to begin work on. Again, a unifying Paradigm (or more), with enough specific ones to put on an outer ring.

lesser_minion

2010-01-17, 12:42 PM

A sphere grid system seems like an interesting plan.

I'm not sure how you'll do it without running the risk of overcomplicating things, but it sounds like an interesting plan.

It might also fit with some of the ideas I have in mind for rituals.

If we can simply think up possible subparadigms and worry about pidgeonholing them later, that might also make parts of this a little easier to develop.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 12:44 PM

A sphere grid system seems like an interesting plan.

I'm not sure how you'll do it without running the risk of overcomplicating things, but it sounds like an interesting plan.

It'll be complicated at first glance, definitely. It'll require a few Inkscape projects on my part to organize. If ever put into a PDF, there will be a few pages of organizational charts.

That said, I think it's not to complicated once you understand it, and could lead to a very interesting and very unique core for the project.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 12:45 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 12:48 PM

Well, we can begin by defining what those five words mean. Here's what I'm seeing for Tradition, as an example:

Tradition: Magic is just another kind of science; you are exploiting natural laws which already exist for your own benefit. Tradition requires learning, intelligence, and the willingness to go out into the world an experiement. Possible Subparadigms: Technomancer, Ritualist (revised edition

Actually, I think Tradition kind of eats up the Ritualist, as all the Rituals were was a traditional way of using the magic. Basically, I was looking at subparadigms as things like these:

Technomancy
Elementalism
Naturalism
...
...

Done in Ritual-style magic. Technology as a means to an end would be a major Paradigm in and of itself.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 12:52 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 12:54 PM

Right now, it looks like either Cosmic or Sacrifice are going to be the odd men out. What are your ideas on the themes/mechanics/concepts of the five Paradigms?

EDIT: The first post has been updated with our current agenda.

Bear in mind that we can have more than five. We can do a six-stange oval set-up with a double center, or a circle with a triple center and six or nine stage around it.

I'm just trying to get as many "methods" of belief as possible, and then determine which we keep by how the table needs to be balanced.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-17, 01:15 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 01:27 PM

Well, Cosmic seems a bit too broad; it simply covers TOO MUCH.

Lemme see here, you have Tradition, Sacrifice, Innate, and Excellence. We can add Technology to that list; the idea that the universe adheres to certain, immutable natural laws, which may be exploited for your benefit, but what are you thinking for the others?

The previously-Channeler subparadigms of Genea and Thea, for example, would fit Innate.

Well let's take a look at those.

--Innate is the opposite of Technological, I think. Technological may also need to be renamed...I'd suggest Object or Focus, as this gives us both the mad crafter style (still not sure this fits perfectly) and the Artifact-powered adventurer.
--Sacrifice is the opposite of Excellence.
--Tradition, however, is a bad unifying force, which means that Tradition needs an opposite.

Then we can either forgo a unifying force (making a hexagon), or come up with a few more areas, making a more complex, but maybe more rewarding, system.

lesser_minion

2010-01-17, 01:30 PM

I can see technology being separate from ritualist magic, but they do have a lot in common. 'Metaphysics' might be a better term for the two together (or 'metaphysica' for gratuitous Greek fans).

The difference between the metaphysical paradigms is that scientists - Technomagi - try to ascertain what laws reality follows by performing experiments, whereas Magisters accept the word of philosophers who died millennia ago.

The paths I can think of are:

Metaphysica. Belief that reality operates under certain laws and that some of those laws can be exploited.
The Spirits. Belief that everything has a spirit, and that those spirits are willing to listen to you if you know how to talk to them.
The Mark. Those who believe in the power of some event or in some higher power
The Gift. Those who believe in their own power.
The Discipline. Those who believe they can gain power through discipline and training.

Technology and Tradition are both subsets of metaphysica really - Technology is basically 'sciency' metaphysics, developed based on the idea of formulating ideas by experiment. Traditionalists instead believe in the works of certain ancient philosophers, and don't try to challenge their work.

Oslecamo

2010-01-17, 02:43 PM

That said: Gentlement, Ladies, We Have a Problem

"Non-Magical" Classes and Concepts - Boned at Birth
I don't need to beat a dead horse as far as why fighters, barbarians, and other martial classes suffer mechanical problems when compared to spellcasters. However, the problem runs far, far deeper than simple shoddy mechanics; it cuts right down to the conceptual difference between "warrior" and "mage".

Magic can do anything. This idea has long been rooted in the public conciousness; magic's capabilities are limitless, the power of its practictioners potentially infinite. This kind of concepts lends power and utility to classes which stem from it.

Technological concepts have a similar benefit, for a similar reason; the public believes that, given enough time, machines could do anything. With the proper tools, a technological character can rival even the most powerful of mages.

And then you have a warrior, a character who makes his living either through war, assasination, freelance mercenary work - whatever. What does this character have available to them?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The archetype of a great warrior is someone who is only a warrior, and this expectation is what cripples classes which stem from the concept. Even in this modern, technological age, it happens all too often that a soldier returns home and can no longer function without an enemy. Warriors fight, and little else.

What does this mean for the Paradigm Project? It means that "warrior" concepts are going to be difficult. We are always going to have players which do not want to play a mage, or who draw inspiration from characters such as Conan, Drizzt Do'Urden, or the Hunter, but these players are owed the same opportunity for utility and use that the other players recieve for choosing different concepts. One option is to make "non-magical" classes NPC only, but this option leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and I'm certain it does for you as well.

The other option, unfortunately, involves limiting concepts; the holy warrior, for example, would be an example of a definitively martial concept with the potential for out-of-combat utility. So, too, a "chosen one", or one who wields an artifact of legend. These concepts have the potential to be the equal of the mage or the inventor, but that means cutting out the mercenary, the soldier, and similar concepts.

Where do we draw the line?

I say swallow it and offer an half-warrior option, that can be combined with magic/technology/(insert broad concept here), for a dude who likes fighting but want to do other stuff in his free time.

Then offer the pure warrior option, a bloodthirsty machine of war who can kick everybody else's ass in combat unless horibbly outnumbered, but can't do anything else.

lesser_minion

2010-01-17, 02:58 PM

I say swallow it and offer an half-warrior option, that can be combined with magic/technology/(insert broad concept here), for a dude who likes fighting but want to do other stuff in his free time.

Then offer the pure warrior option, a bloodthirsty machine of war who can kick everybody else's ass in combat unless horibbly outnumbered, but can't do anything else.

The problem is that it isn't fun to be able to do nothing but kill people.

The classic 'fighting hero' archetype should really be able to do a lot more than just hit things, however you look at it.

Oslecamo

2010-01-17, 03:08 PM

The problem is that it isn't fun to be able to do nothing but kill people.

Some people would enjoy it, trust me.

The classic 'fighting hero' archetype should really be able to do a lot more than just hit things, however you look at it.

But the problem here is that the magic users are already doing everything with magic, whereas the classic "fighting hero" archetypes are good fighters and then have extra skillz on top of their fighting.

Aragorn is pretty skilled with the bow and sword, but his healing and tracking abilities have nothing to do with it.

King Artur is a big fighter, but at the same time he's a big leader. He isn't that good of a tracker however.

Conan is a fighter-thief no matter how you look at it. His climbing skillz and puzzle-solving skillz are separated from his ability to swing swords.

And then, what happens if you can track, heal, climb and solve puzzles more easily with magic than with your bare "fighting" hands? Because that's what I'm seeing here. Lots of nifty magic effects that allow the magic classes to do a lot of effects.

The classic "fighting hero" never appears in low magic settings. Conan fights a lot of wizards, but I don't remember he allying with one. Plus magic in his world is very very dangerous to the user, and limited. Gandalf comes and goes as he pleases, and he's much stronger than Aragorn. Ditto for Merlin who acts behind Artur. Aquiles was the plaything of gods for all his life, dying to a poisoned arrow once he took out his god-blessed armor.

Vadin

2010-01-17, 03:34 PM

An idea for martial paradigm classes- they have a major statistic paradigm, and each paradigm has two mental subparadigms and a purely-physical subparadigm.

Strength
Berserker (Physical): He does what he's good at, and what he's good at is kicking ass.
Ranger (Wisdom): He'll track you through the woods after he finishes healing his buddy.
Leader (Charisma): He'll cut your head off after he finishes inspiring his allies to do more than they thought possible.

Constitution
Dreadnought (Physical): He's an unstoppable monster who is slow to act and slower to fall.
Monk (Wisdom): His focus will let him perform unthinkable stunts that would destroy anyone else's body- catching a dragon, falling a thousand feet, and coming back from the edge of death are all within the monk's purview.
Bastion (Intelligence): He uses his knowledge of tactics and everything else to shield his allies from harm and slow down and cripple his enemies.

Dexterity
Daredevil (Physical): He's faster than you and agile enough to dodge a rain of arrows.
Duelist (Charisma): His rapier wit cuts enemies down to size and draws the ire of all his foes.
Factotum (Intelligence): He knows your weakness, he knows how to copy your signature, and he knows the long-lost maneuver that will capitalize on that sprained ankle you seem to be sporting.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 04:41 PM

An idea for martial paradigm classes- they have a major statistic paradigm, and each paradigm has two mental subparadigms and a purely-physical subparadigm.

Personally, while this is a good idea, I feel that it would be better to avoid having both a class system and a Paradigm system...and these seem much more like classes than our Paradigm concepts.

* Metaphysica. Belief that reality operates under certain laws and that some of those laws can be exploited.
* The Spirits. Belief that everything has a spirit, and that those spirits are willing to listen to you if you know how to talk to them.
* The Mark. Those who believe in the power of some event or in some higher power
* The Gift. Those who believe in their own power.
* The Discipline. Those who believe they can gain power through discipline and training.

Hmmm...I rather like parts of this, and will definitely bear them in mind.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 05:26 PM

PirateMonk

2010-01-17, 05:40 PM

Alright...brace yourselves, because this will be a little new.

Here's a Six Paradigm Model of my idea for the core Paradigm design.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/Djinn_in_Tonic/Paradigmmodel.png

You can enter adjacent Paradigms along related subparadigms (same or related colors). For instance...starting on the Purple circle of the Purple Sub-Paradigm, I could expand my character's knowledge to include abilities from any of the following (primary Paradigm is first, sub-paradigm is in parenthesis): Purple (yellow), Purple (red), Purple (blue), Purple (green), Green (purple), Green (green), Blue (purple), Blue (blue), Red (red), Yellow (yellow).

In short, you move along the lines, starting with a spot of your choice on your initial Paradigm. Simple in concept, if the graph is a little daunting.

Thoughts?

Switch orange and yellow, so complementary colors are opposite each other.

As to actual content, it looks good, but what would it translate into? Would Blue(Green) actually be primarily whatever blue becomes, but with elements of green? To what extent?

Edit- Actually, switch blue and purple, so colors two apart combine to make the color between them.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 05:42 PM

Switch orange and yellow, so complementary colors are opposite each other.

Oh...duh. I thought I had, but turns out I messed that up. :smallredface:

As to actual content, it looks good, but what would it translate into? Would Blue(Green) actually be primarily whatever blue becomes, but with elements of green? To what extent?

I'm not 100% certain, actually. I'd imagine Blue (green) would be primarily a blue Paradigm, but a paradigm that could easily be adapted to a Green manner...

PirateMonk

2010-01-17, 09:14 PM

Some thoughts on expanding lesser_minion's system to six paradigms:

Metaphysica and The Gift are fairly clearly opposed, as the first involves utterly impersonal universal rules and the second is all about the personal and immediate. The Discipline and The Mark work less well, but better than anything else. That leaves The Spirits and something else, arranged like this:

* Metaphysica The Mark

????? * * * * * * The Spirits

* The Discipline The Gift

Aside from the opposition, two other patterns emerge. First, they are evenly divided into "personal" and "impersonal" paradigms, with Metaphysica, The Mark, and The Spirits mostly dealing with things outside the self, while The Gift, The Discipline, and the new one deal with the self. This suggests that the missing paradigm should be slightly personal, but less so than The Discipline. Second, going clockwise from the Mark, they are in ascending order of how mechanistic and unreliable they are. The Mark is entirely dependent on an outside force that one has little control over. The Spirits is similar, but as equal powers rather than higher powers, one can presumably compel them to assist you at least some of the time. The Gift isn't dependent on outside entities, but innate talents can fail or act in surprising ways. The Discipline relies on a system, so it should be somewhat mechanistic. Metaphysica is entirely about exploiting immutable laws. So, the missing paradigm should be fairly mechanistic and slightly personal.

The Sacrifice paradigm tossed around earlier could work, as specific payments for specific effects is mechanistic, but isn't a very good opposite to The Spirits, and cuts into the shtick of the Ritualist, which seems to have been absorbed into Metaphysica under this layout.

Another possibility is something based around relationships and belief in The Power of Friendship/Love. This makes a passable opposite to The Spirits, being concerned with other people rather than immaterial spirits and is slightly personal, but is unlikely to turn out very mechanistic. For nonmagic, it fits leader-types much better than The Discipline or The Gift.

Any other suggestions?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 09:38 PM

Immortal vs. Intrinsic Paradigms: The Immortal Paradigm stems from belief in a higher power or a spiritual world, while the Intrinsic Paradigm draws from a strong sense of self belief.

Discipline vs. Sacrifice Paradigms: The Discipline Paradigm stems from the belief that power can be taught and learned through practice and focus, while the Sacrifice Paradigm finds shortcuts and byways through deals and sacrifices.

Metaphysic vs. Natural Paradigms The Metaphysic Paradigm trusts that reality operates under certain laws and that some of those laws can be exploited, while the Natural Paradigm draws from the forces of the world itself.

The cycles is as follows:
Immortal
Sacrifice
Metaphysic
Intrinsic
Discipline
Natural

Sacrifice and Nature tie in with Immortal, and Metaphysic (the breaking of laws through self power) and Discipline tie in with Intrinsic.

Thoughts?

Again, just putting things already mentioned into my blender, and seeing what comes out.

Oh...and Gareth? I know you love your Technomancers...They'd be a Metaphysic/Intrinsic/Discipline hybrid, probably. But the more we work on this, the more I think we start general, and have Technomancer abilities, if anything. They seem to be less of a Paradigm or Subparadigm and more a demonstration of powers in use...

PirateMonk

2010-01-17, 09:51 PM

(the breaking of laws through self power)

Wouldn't breaking natural laws be the opposite of what Metaphysical characters want? Their entire approach is based on the world working in reliable, predictable ways, no matter what.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-17, 09:54 PM

Wouldn't breaking natural laws be the opposite of what Metaphysical characters want? Their entire approach is based on the world working in reliable, predictable ways, no matter what.

Hmmm...we may be thinking along different lines here. I viewed it as sort of imposing ones will upon natural laws, and making them do things they shouldn't normally do...

PirateMonk

2010-01-17, 10:02 PM

Hmmm...we may be thinking along different lines here. I viewed it as sort of imposing ones will upon natural laws, and making them do things they shouldn't normally do...

That would certainly work, but to some degree, all paradigms involve reshaping natural laws through belief in something, and it would interesting if under Metaphysics one warped it to the point where it became a consistent system again.

lesser_minion

2010-01-17, 10:05 PM

PirateMonk

2010-01-17, 10:17 PM

Well, I didn't pull the name "metaphysics" out of a hat.

In the real world, it's the study of the laws of reality, reaching beyond any specific scientific discipline.

It's exploitation rather than breaking.

Metaphysics vs. Natural still works in a sense though. Metaphysics is about the way the entire universe works, after all.

Given how mutable reality seems to be under this system, Metaphysicists could be the most delusional people in the world.

Edit: As to Djinn_In_Tonic's proposed system, it looks good at least as a starting point, though the second two oppositions are a bit of a stretch. I'll think about it more tomorrow. What exactly does "tie in" mean?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-18, 01:16 PM

Edit: As to Djinn_In_Tonic's proposed system, it looks good at least as a starting point, though the second two oppositions are a bit of a stretch. I'll think about it more tomorrow. What exactly does "tie in" mean?

"Tie in" means this:

Let's replace Sacrifice with Bargain...the exchange of something for power (sanity, souls, and so forth...).

A tie-in from Bargain (Purple) to Immortal (Green) might be this:

Martyr [Purple (green)]: Sacrificing personal health/happiness for direct intervention of an outside force.
Offering [Green (purple)]: A complex ritual system of prayer and offerings that grants favor from the gods.

Martyr is primarily a bargain/sacrifice paradigm, with strong connections to the Immortal paradigm.

Offering is mainly an Immortal paradigm, but sacrifice and offering plays a large role in it.

As such, they are the crossing points.

PirateMonk

2010-01-18, 01:34 PM

"Tie in" means this:

Let's replace Sacrifice with Bargain...the exchange of something for power (sanity, souls, and so forth...).

A tie-in from Bargain (Purple) to Immortal (Green) might be this:

Martyr [Purple (green)]: Sacrificing personal health/happiness for direct intervention of an outside force.
Offering [Green (purple)]: A complex ritual system of prayer and offerings that grants favor from the gods.

Martyr is primarily a bargain/sacrifice paradigm, with strong connections to the Immortal paradigm.

Offering is mainly an Immortal paradigm, but sacrifice and offering plays a large role in it.

As such, they are the crossing points.

So this is instead of the looser connections in the original diagram?

What exactly is "Natural" intended to mean? How is it opposite to Metaphysic?

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-19, 07:03 PM

Bump! Also, embarassing as this is to admit, subscribing now >.>

Bergor Terraf

2010-01-22, 12:54 AM

What exactly is "Natural" intended to mean? How is it opposite to Metaphysic?

The way I see it, natural means that the basic forces and components of the world can be coerced into doing things they would not normal do. Probably a mix of elemental forces and spirits of things.

Metaphysic learns the rules and uses them to its advantage. Since nature can "bend" these rules, I find it fitting to make them opposites.

PirateMonk

2010-01-22, 02:26 PM

The way I see it, natural means that the basic forces and components of the world can be coerced into doing things they would not normal do. Probably a mix of elemental forces and spirits of things.

Metaphysic learns the rules and uses them to its advantage. Since nature can "bend" these rules, I find it fitting to make them opposites.

Okay, if Natural is intended to be a spiritual thing, that works.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-22, 05:45 PM

PirateMonk

2010-01-23, 11:57 AM

This new hex-based progression intrigues me. How will it interact with BAB/Saves? For that matter, are we keeping those parts of the system the same? I do like saves as opposed to defences; it keeps the player actively involved in the combat and gives them a sense of personal accomplishment/failure.

Like I've said before, everyone - YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS MATTER!

Giving each subparadigm its own BAB and save progressions doesn't seem like it would work, though it could if each was made specific enough. If we eliminate those things altogether, though, we might as well give up on pretending this has anything to do with D&D, which may or may not be a bad thing.

ApeofLight

2010-01-23, 12:18 PM

Well, do you guys want to start just from scratch or keep the basics of the D20 system.

I would suggest to keep the D20 basics. Keep saves, its pretty easy and everyone knows how to do it.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 12:52 PM

One potential idea is to allow players to choose their own BAB/Saves, but at-cost. For example, choosing a Good B.A.B. means that you only have one Good save and two Poor ones. We might also experiment with introducing moderate saving throws - so it would look like this:

BAB/Save/Save/Save
Good/Good/Poor/Poor
Moderate/Good/Moderate/Poor
Poor/Good/Good/Poor

Or some other combination thereof.

PirateMonk

2010-01-23, 12:58 PM

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 01:03 PM

Alright, so - since we're changing how the class system itself works, how are we going to handle character progression? A character definitely needs to grow more powerful as they advance, and I don't think we should punish players unnecessarily for branching outside of their initial Paradigm, the way that 3.5 (attempted) to punish multi-classing. To that end, I have a few ideas:

Everything Scales: All of the abilities you pick up scale to level. Probably not feasible.

Spend XP: Or maybe we should call them Conviction Points? I'm not sure. Either way, introduce a White Wolf-esque system wherein one "spends" XP to gain improvements, with BAB/Saves going up after a certain amount of gathered experience.

Any other ideas, folks?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-23, 01:04 PM

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 01:07 PM

Alright folks - do we want a new thread to discuss and design the Character Progression and Basic Mechanics section of the Project?

Either way, we are now taking volunteers to work on Character Progression and Basic Mechanics as dedicated contributers. You would be working under Team Leader Djinn_in_Tonic.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-23, 01:14 PM

Alright. I don't think we need a new thread, but here are some thoughts...

Do we want to keep basic d20 mechanics?
If so, how do we map level progression in terms of Base Attack Bonus/Saves?
Do we want to combine them with the Conviction system? I.e. every X Conviction is a new "level," which gives certain numerical bonuses?

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 01:17 PM

I'm in favor of keeping saves, skill points, and base attack bonus. Hit points, like you mentioned, need some freshening up. I like the idea of these basic faculties increasing at a certain amount of Conviction points; it avoids forcing players to choose between their powers and their mundane skills, and also (I think) handily simulates how people pick up experience just by living life. That said, most of the actual skills need a serious re-write.

PirateMonk

2010-01-23, 02:17 PM

Conviction Points sound good. Progressions can be much more flexible if they simply consist of "Characteristic A improves by one at thresholds X, Y, and Z." What progressions would work?

Edit: And what orders of magnitude would CPs generally be in? Thousands and tens of thousands, like XP? Ones? Tens? Hundreds? Millions?

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 02:21 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-01-23, 02:23 PM

Well, THAT question depends greatly on how, when, and how many Conviction points are handed out, as well as the type of numbers we're dealing with. In a Storyteller game, one XP per session is common, and XP is spent at small enough numbers to make that a significant amount. Do we want to deal in ones, tens, hundreds, or thousands? When do we want to see Conviction points handed out? For what? That'll determine the speed of advancement more than anything.

1s or 10s (either per encounter or per session) would be my preference. It's also easier to determine your advancement it you're not dealing with tens of thousands of tiny numbers. It's far easier to say: I'll spend 3 Conviction to learn Anger the Sleeping Earth and 2 Conviction to increase my attack bonus by +2 than it is to do similar calculations involving numbers like 17,555 and 41,352.

PirateMonk

2010-01-23, 03:17 PM

Okay, that scale sounds good. Should the progressions just involve tradeoffs between saves, BAB, skills, and other similar things, or should you be allowed to take low basic characteristics in exchange for cost breaks on special abilities? The second could be considered to constitute "forcing players to choose between their powers and their mundane skills," but does make somewhat more sense and makes certain character types easier.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-23, 03:53 PM

I don't really like that idea, because it encourages min-maxing, which no one really likes. Plus, everyone is good at SOMETHING. Even a huge, filthy, sloppy fat guy probably has, say, a Fortitude save to die for, y'know?

What scale do we want to balance for? Personally, I take inspiration from Dead Fantasy and Sorcen's Baator for higher-level play - I can imagine things going from epic to /crazy/ fast. Thoughts?

PirateMonk

2010-01-23, 04:01 PM

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-24, 11:52 AM

A-hem:

Djiiiin, HIT POINT QUESTION!

(Personally, that's an interesting question. I don't want to lean towards World of Darkness-style hit points, which would make the game highly lethal, but D&D's hit points are abstract and near-meaningless. Something like Scion might be appropriate - damage is meaningful, but your characters have the awe-inspiring ability to avoid, soak, or otherwise mitigate it, creating epic fights. But, see above - Djinn is really the guy on hit points right now).

lesser_minion

2010-01-24, 01:16 PM

Meh, I'd just steal True20's injury system wholesale, but that's probably too lethal as well.

I don't think we really want to go down the Exalted/Scion route though. This is gaming, not thermofluids.

Lord_Gareth

2010-01-24, 10:45 PM

Care to elaborate more on the thermofluids comment?

lesser_minion

2010-01-24, 11:04 PM

Care to elaborate more on the thermofluids comment?

There are definitely bits you can use from Exalted, but it actually is harder to learn than fluid mechanics overall, so using too much might be a bad idea.

Exalted's wound level system isn't too bad, admittedly, but none of the Storyteller/Storytelling games really fit that well with D&D-style gaming - the whole point behind health levels is to exploit the dice pool that d20 doesn't use.

As for the experience system, I'd be tempted to suggest simply going back to characters gaining experience directly from training, practice, and study. It's not difficult to keep track of, and it's actually better balanced because everyone in a group will gain experience at the same rate, no matter what.

PirateMonk

2010-01-30, 07:17 PM

Bump.

Also, some ideas on what various subparadigms could be, based on the original diagram with Djinn_In_Tonic's paradigm setup. These are probably a little too specific.

Metaphysic (Metaphysic): Philosopher. Knows how the world works, and can use this to manipulate it.
Metaphysic (Intrinsic): Mad Scientist. Relies on personal intellect, intuition, and insanity to determine laws of reality.
Metaphysic (Discipline): Technomancer. Studies working of reality, and creates devices based off results.
Metaphysic (Natural): Elemental Psychologist. Attempts to determine how natural forces act, and uses this to exploit them.
Metaphysic (Immortal): Divine Legal Scholar. Believes that gods are bound by strict laws, and studies these laws to gain an advantage.
Metaphysic (Bargain): Supernatural Economist. Believes that certain things can be exchanged for power according to a fixed system.
Intrinsic (Metaphysic): ???
Intrinsic (Intrinsic): Badass Normal. Believes in their own abilities to excel.
Intrinsic (Discipline): ???
Intrinsic (Natural): ???
Intrinsic (Immortal): Autotheist. Believes that they are a god.
Intrinsic (Bargain): ???
Discipline (Metaphysic): Hermetic Mage. Trains in mystical tradition to understand natural laws and cast spells using them.
Discipline (Intrinsic): ???
Discipline (Discipline): Spartan. Trains to improve themself.
Discipline (Natural): ???
Discipline (Immortal): ???
Discipline (Bargain): ???
Natural (Metaphysic): ???
Natural (Intrinsic): ???
Natural (Discipline): Druid. Studies ancient traditions to harness the forces of nature.
Natural (Natural): Shaman. Binds spirits and uses them to accomplish tasks.
Natural (Immortal): ???
Natural (Bargain): ???
Immortal (Metaphysic): ???
Immortal (Intrinsic): ???
Immortal (Discipline): Monk (Western). Trains, studies, and follows a particular lifestyle in order to better serve their god(s).
Immortal (Natural): ???
Immortal (Immortal): Cleric. Worships one or more gods in exchange for power.
Immortal (Bargain): "Offering...: A complex ritual system of prayer and offerings that grants favor from the gods."
Bargain (Metaphysic): Metaphysical Lawyer. Attempts to create binding contracts with a variety of entities.
Bargain (Intrinsic): ???
Bargain (Discipline): ???
Bargain (Natural): ???
Bargain (Immortal): "Martyr...: Sacrificing personal health/happiness for direct intervention of an outside force."
Bargain (Bargain): Merchant of Everything. Tries to buy and sell whatever they can to gain power.

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-01, 01:53 PM

Wow. Seriously nice list.

So, does a character start in one subpardigm combination (such as Metaphysic/Offering) and advance from there, or what?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-01, 01:57 PM

Wow. Seriously nice list.

So, does a character start in one subpardigm combination (such as Metaphysic/Offering) and advance from there, or what?

Yes, one would. Each of those represents one of the subparadigm combinations (smaller circles) on my large flow-chart. They could then advance from there along the lines, or delve further into their own subparadigm.

I'll get back to work on this shortly. :smallbiggrin:

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-01, 02:17 PM

Yes, one would. Each of those represents one of the subparadigm combinations (smaller circles) on my large flow-chart. They could then advance from there along the lines, or delve further into their own subparadigm.

I'll get back to work on this shortly. :smallbiggrin:

Good - there's a hit point question :p

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-01, 02:22 PM

Good - there's a hit point question :p

Ah. Hit points.

Well, I'm open to suggestions. But one thing I had going a while ago was an attempt to define the ambiguity of D&D hit points.

I divided them into two pools: Evasion, and Injury. Evasion was composed of fast-healing (per hour or faster) hit points that represented your ability to just slide by attacks that would have hit you. Injury was slower to heal, and represented attacks that actually landed and dealt physical damage.

Injury damage was brutal...you could become exhausted, receive penalties, and similar if you took to much of it.

Some abilities bypassed Evasion, making them exceptionally painful. Being hit while flat-footed, for example.

PCs increased in Injury points by only a small amount, while their Evasion pool was drastically increased. This made certain weapon techniques potent across every level (as injury points don't increase by as much), and also preserved some realism: a 20th level character stabbed through the stomach while sleeping is just as dead as a 5th level character stabbed through the stomach while sleeping.

lesser_minion

2010-02-01, 02:22 PM

I'd suggest avoiding 'badass' as a name for a character class. 'Badass' is not in anything you write on your character sheet - if anything, it's more likely to be undermined by it.

Still, I'm working through basic mechanics now, when I've finished explaining why a level 5 PC should actually be CR 3.

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-01, 02:24 PM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-01, 02:28 PM

Well, do we really want a "realistic" hit point system when we're abandoning any pretense of realism most every place else? Plus, that sounds pretty uncomfortably like the Vitality system, wherein one plays a more refined class of mook, as opposed to a player character.

True. Got something more in tune with the system in mind? I'm up for vague and undefined...:smallamused:

I'd suggest avoiding 'badass' as a name for a character class. 'Badass' is not in anything you write on your character sheet - if anything, it's more likely to be undermined by it.

Names are vague...I think he was describing more than naming. I think a lot of those, while incredibly excellent ideas, could use new names.

lesser_minion

2010-02-01, 02:28 PM

Well, do we really want a "realistic" hit point system when we're abandoning any pretense of realism most every place else? Plus, that sounds pretty uncomfortably like the Vitality system, wherein one plays a more refined class of mook, as opposed to a player character.

Who said anything about realism?

If someone hits you with some kind of epic attack, it should probably smart at least a little.

A system I considered using at one point was the following:

Characters have a pool of Endurance points
Being hit imposes a penalty on a character, which precludes certain actions.
To get around a wound penalty, you could spend some Endurance from your pool.

At the time, I was thinking of also having endurance be the limiting factor on magic and other coolness.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-01, 02:32 PM

Who said anything about realism?

If someone hits you with some kind of epic attack, it should probably smart at least a little.

A system I considered using simply gave characters a pool of points to use for recovering from hits and had them take an injury penalty when they were actually hit.

That's what I was going for. Evasion is that pool of points, and the injury hit points represent someone finally breaking through.

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-01, 02:33 PM

Well, I mentioned earlier that something inspired by Scion might be appropriate; characters have health, and damage to that health seriously smarts, especially when you only have so much to go around. However, they can also "soak" a certain amount of damage per attack/round/encounter/day, blowing it off for one reason or another. Look at all the punishment the Dead Fantasy characters take (shot, stabbed, cut, burned, frozen, bludgeoned, bled, et cetera) before finally succumbing to injury (see Tifa getting her ass whupped, Dead Fantasy 3 and 5).

That way, certain powers may be significant in terms of raw damage by reducing or ignoring soak. If we choose to have armor augment soak, some attacks might ignore armor but not natural soak, or vice-versa. Mechanical versitility, aye?

lesser_minion

2010-02-01, 02:54 PM

That starts out OK - I'd like to use a condition track of some kind.

The problem with Exalted, however, is that it goes completely insane. A fight in Exalted can be good if you have good players, but it can easily degenerate into a case of simply pinning an opponent down and grinding through their Essence pool - and if they try anything else, you autoblock it and stab them.

I'd probably start from the True20 toughness save, which makes attacks that ignore armour ridiculously easy - a touch attack is a normal attack, but your opponent doesn't have to roll to see if they get cut in half.

After being injured, simply allow characters to do something to recover (Working this way round removes the need for the system to be bypassed when someone gets stabbed in the face).

The other system I've considered using, which is actually a little closer to your suggestion, was to give characters a pool of wound points, and have them gain vitality points at the start of each encounter, equal to the number of wound points remaining. That's more of a cinematic but gritty approach - a lightly injured character won't be impaired for the rest of the day, while a badly injured character will probably have to drop out until they recover.

PirateMonk

2010-02-01, 03:16 PM

I'd suggest avoiding 'badass' as a name for a character class. 'Badass' is not in anything you write on your character sheet - if anything, it's more likely to be undermined by it.

I couldn't come up with a good name, and wanted to have exactly half of them described.

Ah. Hit points.

Well, I'm open to suggestions. But one thing I had going a while ago was an attempt to define the ambiguity of D&D hit points.

I divided them into two pools: Evasion, and Injury. Evasion was composed of fast-healing (per hour or faster) hit points that represented your ability to just slide by attacks that would have hit you. Injury was slower to heal, and represented attacks that actually landed and dealt physical damage.

Injury damage was brutal...you could become exhausted, receive penalties, and similar if you took to much of it.

Some abilities bypassed Evasion, making them exceptionally painful. Being hit while flat-footed, for example.

PCs increased in Injury points by only a small amount, while their Evasion pool was drastically increased. This made certain weapon techniques potent across every level (as injury points don't increase by as much), and also preserved some realism: a 20th level character stabbed through the stomach while sleeping is just as dead as a 5th level character stabbed through the stomach while sleeping.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have attacks which don't hit you actually not hit, rather than hitting you but not taking away your "real" hit points? You certainly might get tired after dodging attacks for a long time, but I'm not sure this is the best way to model that.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-01, 03:20 PM

Wouldn't it make more sense to have attacks which don't hit you actually not hit, rather than hitting you but not taking away your "real" hit points? You certainly might get tired after dodging attacks for a long time, but I'm not sure this is the best way to model that.

I was aiming for the following: against an unskilled opponent, I don't need to expend much effort. Most of his attacks are going to be easy to dodge or deflect. This is the opponent who can't reliably hit my armor class.

Against a more skilled opponent, fewer attacks are that easy to dodge. Most of his require intense focus, concentration, speed, and skill on my part to avoid, and, eventually, one of us will tire. This is the opponent hitting me and wearing down my evasion until he can just beat me up.

lesser_minion

2010-02-01, 03:36 PM

If we want to incorporate combat fatigue, I think a more general system might be better than having a separate pool of points for each application.

I'm pretty sure it is possible to create a condition track that takes into account both fatigue and injury, if we wanted to.

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-03, 11:26 AM

@Minion - Why do you keep bringing up Exalted when I mention Scion?

lesser_minion

2010-02-04, 05:19 PM

Presumably, Scion does improve a few things compared with Exalted, but I can't really comment on it, because all I know about it is the premise and that it uses pretty much the same system.

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-05, 10:37 AM

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-02-05, 11:36 AM

Characters in Scion have health levels like in the World of Darkness. They take bashing, lethal, and aggravated damage. There is no Essence, and I'm fairly certain that the systems are only similar in that they use D10's and are epic as hell.

Actually, like all White Wolf games, the systems are almost exactly the same. Sure, Exalted and Scion have different names for things, different abilities, and the like, but they're really just different versions of the same system...kinda like how d20 Modern and D&D are technically compatible if you're willing to use handwavium on a few minor rules issues.

And, with that, the Djinn disappears for the weekend. I will see you folks (and will get to work on this) on Monday!

lesser_minion

2010-02-05, 11:38 AM

They're both based on the same framework, actually - right down to internal and external penalties, ticks, and so on.

Scion changes the way powers work, so there are no Charms, and Knacks are something completely different to the ones in Exalted, IIRC.

As I said, Scion probably improves the situation, but I've seen enough of the system it uses to know that I'd have preferred it if they'd started from the Storytelling system and just re-written the combat rules for more detail.

We've managed quite a few proposals for damage handling - I guess it's up to you now.

PirateMonk

2010-02-16, 08:35 PM

Is anyone still here?

Here's a very vague outline as to how these fairly abstract paradigms might translate into concrete powers. I consider preparation required, time needed, and general power level. Obviously, people of "impure" subparadigms will work slightly differently, but this will likely just be a matter of fusing the two mechanics.

Metaphysicists discover how reality works and construct Devices to exploit what they learn. Devices require difficult, expensive, time consuming preparation to build. They also tend to take a long time to activate. They are, however, extremely powerful. Furthermore, some Devices are simple enough to be used by anyone, while others required detailed technical knowledge and thus can only be used by Metaphysicists, or even only by people of the creator's subparadigm, and some can only be understood by the mind from whence they came.

Intrinsicists possess a wide variety of Talents for various things. Talents require no preparation, as they are things that one can simply do. They are generally very quick to use. They are generally weaker than any other abilities, though they are by no means useless.

Disciplinarians have through their training acquired a number of useful Skills. Some have tools or materials necessary to them, but otherwise preparation is not required. They are typically slow, particularly in the case of magical rituals. Skills are moderately powerful. (After thinking this through further, I realize that using "Skill" for this may conflict with the more conventional meaning, but it fits so well.)

Naturalists bind the very forces of nature and use their power in Harnessings. They require a great deal of preparation, to actually call forth and bind the forces in question. Once the entities are bound, however, they do as the Naturalist wishes fairly quickly. Harnessings are fairly powerful. (Can anyone come up with a better name for the abilities?)

Immortalizers apply divine power in the form of Miracles, whether in the form of powers granted by the gods or requests for direct divine intercession. Requests do not require any preparation, but are very time consuming, gods being busy people who are hard to get the attention of. Granted powers require the foresight to ask for the power one wants, but are somewhat faster. As they are fueled by the gods themselves, Miracles are very powerful.

Bargainers make Payments to whichever entity they deal with in exchange for power. These require no preparation, as making a deal with a supernatural being is a requirement for being in the paradigm, not something done before the use of each power. Exact prices may be worked out beforehand, in which case Payments will be fast, or there may be haggling involved, in which case they will take longer. Of course, Payments require some sort of sacrifice to be made, and have power proportional to the size of the sacrifice.

Bergor Terraf

2010-02-17, 10:31 PM

Naturalists bind the very forces of nature and use their power in Harnessings. They require a great deal of preparation, to actually call forth and bind the forces in question. Once the entities are bound, however, they do as the Naturalist wishes fairly quickly. Harnessings are fairly powerful. (Can anyone come up with a better name for the abilities?)

Off the top of my head: Contracts, Bindings, Deals, Channelings

Lord_Gareth

2010-02-18, 12:46 PM

Expect a writeup from me soon on the question of Races. Do we want to keep creature types?

lesser_minion

2010-02-18, 12:57 PM

Expect a writeup from me soon on the question of Races. Do we want to keep creature types?

We can't really get rid of them, but we need to figure out what a type is, otherwise we're going to end up with a complete mess like the 3.5 types.

Lord_Gareth

2010-03-04, 11:27 AM

Bump. With much bumpage, and great fury.

PirateMonk

2010-03-04, 03:26 PM

So, what are we talking about at this point?

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-12, 03:26 PM

C'mon guys! We've got a big project to do here!

On the subject of character advancement, I think what would happen is that you would have a basic advancement table which would include skills, BAB, saves, and whatever the vitality statistic is as you wish, but balanced out (perhaps basic points to be spent at 1st level?). To gain a level you must earn Conviction Points equal to the level you aspire to gain, so you would start play having already earned 10 conviction points, then would have to earn 20 more to get to second level (setting them at 30 total), then would have to earn 30 more to get to 3rd level (setting them at 60 total) etc. etc.

Each Paradigm would have 5-10 key abilities, ones that are often taken at 1st level, and each Subparadigm would have a multitude of abilities. Abilities do not have 'levels', just different costs. They would each be aimed at one level in particular, though, the idea being that you can take about three abilities of your 'level' per actual level. Feats would be indistinguishable from abilities.

As an example, if you were level two you would normally be looking to gain three abilities that cost 10 points. If you saved up you could afford a 9th level ability just as you reach level 3. You could also afford up to 10 1st level abilities.

Each level you would have a current subparadigm. You can gain powers from your own paradigm and those with direct links to it. You can change subparadigm every level by one step.

Some additional ideas for PirateMonk's list:

Metaphysic (Metaphysic): Knows how the world works, and can use this to manipulate it. Usually mainly spell abilities.
Metaphysic (Intrinsic): Relies on personal intellect, intuition, and insanity to determine laws of reality. Usually part supernatural abilities part tricky abilities.
Metaphysic (Discipline): Studies working of reality, and creates devices based off results. Usually part spell abilities part equipment abilities.
Metaphysic (Natural): Attempts to determine how natural forces act, and uses this to exploit them. Usually part supernatural abilities part power abilities.
Metaphysic (Immortal): Believes that gods are bound by strict laws, and studies these laws to gain an advantage. Usually mainly spell abilities.
Metaphysic (Bargain): Believes that certain things can be exchanged for power according to a fixed system. Usually part manipulative abilities part spell abilities.
Intrinsic (Metaphysic): Believes in own ability to warp the world around them. Usually part supernatural abilities part power abilities.
Intrinsic (Intrinsic): Believes in their own abilities to excel. Usually part power abilities part tricky abilities.
Intrinsic (Discipline): Believes that their own internal power must be disciplined and put to good use. Usually a good balance of different abilities.
Intrinsic (Natural): Believes in own power over nature. Usually part supernatural abilities part power abilities.
Intrinsic (Immortal): Believes that they are a god. Usually mainly supernatural abilities.
Intrinsic (Bargain): Believes that they can unlock additional power within themselves by doing certain things. Usually a good mix of different abilities.
Discipline (Metaphysic): Trains in mystical tradition to understand natural laws and cast spells using them. Usually mainly spell abilities.
Discipline (Intrinsic): Believes that the self must be tamed to achieve ultimate power. Usually mainly power.
Discipline (Discipline): Lives by law and imposes this law on all. Usually a good mix of different abilities.
Discipline (Natural): Believes that nature must be tamed to work along side them. Usually part supernatural abilities part power abilities.
Discipline (Immortal): Believes that the gods favour those who devote themselves in an ordered, knightly way. Usually part spell abilities part power abilities.
Discipline (Bargain): Believes that laws can be placed on other creatures. Usually part supernatural abilities part manipulative abilities.
Natural (Metaphysic): Believes that hidden abilities of the universe can be laid bare. Usually part spell abilities part supernatural abilities.
Natural (Intrinsic): Believes in a roaring part of nature in themselves. Usually part supernatural abilities part power abilities.
Natural (Discipline): Studies ancient traditions to harness the forces of nature. Usually mainly spell abilities.
Natural (Natural): Believes in the raw force of nature. Usually mainly supernatural abilities.
Natural (Immortal): Believes that the spirits act as a guide. Usually mainly supernatural abilities.
Natural (Bargain): Believes that the forces of nature represent a tradeoff for power. Usually part supernatural abilities part spell abilities.
Immortal (Metaphysic): Believes in the immortal forces guiding the world, and think that they have found out how they do it. Usually mainly spell abilities.
Immortal (Intrinsic): Believes that they have a bit of god in themselves. Usually mainly supernatural abilities.
Immortal (Discipline): Trains, studies, and follows a particular lifestyle in order to better serve their god(s). Usually part spell abilities part tricky abilities.
Immortal (Natural): Believes in the great spirits of nature. Usually part spell abilities part supernatural abilities.
Immortal (Immortal): Worships one or more gods in exchange for power. Usually part spell abilities part supernatural abilities.
Immortal (Bargain): "Offering...: A complex ritual system of prayer and offerings that grants favor from the gods."
Bargain (Metaphysic): Attempts to create binding contracts with a variety of entities. Usually a good mix of abilities.
Bargain (Intrinsic): Believes that they must do certain things to unlock the power within themselves. Usually part supernatural part power.
Bargain (Discipline): Believes that they can discipline outer forces and make them work for them, like a binder. Usually part manipulative abilities part spell (summoning) abilities.
Bargain (Natural): Believes that they may trade things with mother earth for great power. Usually part spell part supernatural.
Bargain (Immortal): Believes in "Sacrificing personal health/happiness for direct intervention of an outside force." Usually mainly spell abilities.
Bargain (Bargain): Tries to buy and sell whatever they can to gain power. Usually a good mix of different abilities.

Also, in my idea, powers are not really like 4e powers, more like 3.5 class features and spells. They're all at-will, but sometimes they might require certain conditions before they can be activated.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-13, 01:32 AM

I think that alignments and types ('what, both?' I hear you ask? Yes, both) should be replaced a subparadigm. Since they represent both your philosophy and what you are, I think this is fair. For example, an Immortal(Bargain) character might get a 'smite Intrinsicist' ability, and a weaker 'smite Disciplinarian' ability.

Most natural creatures would have the 'Intrinsic(Natural)' or 'Intrinsic(Intrinsic)' subparadigm, and most magical creatures would have the 'Intrinsic' or 'Immortal' paradigm.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-13, 08:06 AM

O.K, here's my spin on what powers should be (I'm gonna be taking a lot for granted here, so if you don't like any of my ideas please please say)

Each ability has associated with it a paradigm or subparadigm. If it has only a paradigm it will have either (accessible) or (specific) next to it. If it is of the accessible type any creature with it as part of their subparadigm can take it, so a Disciplinarian power may be taken by any creature in that paradigm, but can also be taken by creatures who's subparadigms have that as the second quality, eg. Naturalist (Disciplinarian) or Intrinsicist (Disciplinarian). If it is of the specific type then only creatures within that paradigm may take it.

If it is associated with a subparadigm or group of subparadigms only creatures from those particular subparadigms can take it.

Next is the ability type. This is currently limited to Spell (a clearly supernatural effect that is very consciously 'cast' by the user), Supernatural (an effect that is like a spell but is more of a quality or subconscious thing), Power (an effect that feels like 'warrior strength' etc, usually a combat ability), Trick (an effect that is rouge-style, often skill-based), Transformational (an effect that changes the user) and Enchantment (something that bestows a quality on an item or similar).

If it has a subtype, like [summoning] for summoning Spells or [ranged] for ranged Power attacks, it is written next to the type.

After that comes the Level, with a related Conviction Point cost to learn that ability. In my mind, I want characters who are very powerful from the beginning, as it really adds to the reward of the game at lower levels. I've made a handy little table below. It states the level of the ability and the average cost of an ability. Power is usually that of a spell half it's level. If it has restrictions or very specific use it is usually of a little lower level.

{table=head]Level|Cost

1|3

2|7

3|10

4|13

5|17

6|20

7|23

8|27

9|30

10|33

etc.|etc.[/table]

Next comes the cost for using the ability (although not all abilities have a cost). This is often measured in resolve points, points equal to your total CP (spent and unspent) which are revived after 6 hours of rest.

After that, it says what the DC is (if it is an attack roll it just says that) and what the save is (if it's against AC it just says that). If it doesn't have a DC or save this line says 'no attack'.

Then comes the effect. This can be almost anything you can imagine, from a bonus to a skill to a copy of a 3.5 class feature to a new spell. Anything you can imagine, as long as it's cost-appropriate and you can imagine someone wanting to do it.

The idea I had with this design was to have the versatility and 'sense' of 4e, but the mystery and interest of 3.5. Here is an example, tell me what you think:

Soul Drain
Bargain(Metaphysic or Immortal), Metaphysic(Bargain), Immortal(Bargain), Spell(diabolical)
Level: 1 (cost 3)
Cost: 1 resolve
Preparation: Each morning you must meditate for 5 minutes to establish a link with the diabolic powers that give you this ability.
Attack: DC 11 + int bonus will save
Activation: Standard Action
Effect: An icy claw from the very pits of hell grabs on to the target's soul and attempts to wrench it loose. The subject takes 1d10 Charisma damage. If a creature is reduced to 0 Charisma with this ability they die.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-13, 11:06 AM

O.K, here's my spin on how the base class and character advancement should work (I'm gonna be taking a lot for granted here, so if you don't like any of my ideas please please say).

Here is a table of level by total CP:

{table=head]CP|Level

0-29|1

30-59|2

60-99|3

100-149|4

150-209|5

210-279|6

280-359|7

360-449|8

450-549|9

550-659|10

660-779|11

780-909|12

910-1049|13

1050-1199|14

1200-1359|15

1360-1529|16

1530-1709|17

1710-1899|18

1900-2199|19

2200-2409|20

etc.|etc.[/table]

You automatically get no proficiencies, poor saves, poor BAB and 2 trained skills (not like 4e, see below). You get 7 'base points' to spend. One base point buys a good save, a medium base attack bonus, light shield and armour proficiency, simple weapon proficiency, or four extra trained skills. Two points buy a good attack bonus, simple and martial weapon proficiency, or heavy and light shield and armour proficiency. Every time you gain a level you can rearrange your points, if you wish, but you can never gain more base points.

You apply your full ability modifier to trained skills, and gain all other benefits of being trained in them. You only apply half your ability modifier to untrained skills (unless your modifier is negative, in which case you apply the full modifier) and do not gain the benefits of being trained in them. Also, see below:

Skill Training
All, Trick
Level: Special, CP cost is 1 + twice the amount of times you have already taken this feat with your chosen skill
Benefit: Choose a skill. If you are trained in that skill you gain a +2 bonus to checks with it. If you are untrained you instead gain a +1 bonus and are treated as trained for all other purposes except for this ability.

Other relevant abilities:

Combat Training
All, Power
Level: Special, CP cost is 3 x your BAB (at least 3)
Benefit: You add one to your BAB permanently, including for the purposes of taking this ability.

Resistance
All, Power/Supernatural (choose when you gain it)
Level: Special, cost is 6 x your base bonus to your chosen save (at least 6)
Benefit:Your base bonus to your chosen save increases by one permanently, including for the purposes of taking this ability.

Weapon Proficiency
All, Power
Level: 1
Benefit: Choose either all simple weapons, all martial weapons, or one exotic weapon. You become proficient with those weapons.

I think that, instead of hp, we should have vitality/wound points, but instead call them motivation/wound points, representing how the character's belief in their own invulnerability wavers as they get hit, but slowly restores after a battle. I'm not quite sure how to handle how much points characters, get, as powers are so much more powerful than in d20. I suspect that we'll have to do a play-test giving characters unlimited motivation and wound points and see how much damage they take.

Coming up next: Challenge Rating and monsters.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-13, 01:48 PM

Holy zombies, it's still alive! More specific discussion to follow later.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-13, 03:20 PM

O.K, here's my spin on how our replacement for CR should work and how monsters should be handled (I'm gonna be taking a lot for granted here, so if you don't like any of my ideas please please say).

Every creature has CP. Their HD etc. is appropriate to their CP as if they were a character. However, it's CP is called CR, as in Conviction Reward (it is doomed from birth!). The idea is that, as soon as the creature is felled, it's CR is shared as CP between the party. If it is not divisible by the number of members of the party they simply take turns to gain CP. They can spend this CP immediately if they have an ability already in mind, otherwise they should wait until there is a break in play. The reasoning behind this is that felling a creature adds to your belief in your own abilities, and that is what this system is all about.

Creatures gain abilities according to their CP, but many are abilities that are less obviously 'gained' than character abilities, like Swallow Whole.

Adventures usually have creatures with a combined CR equal to the total CP of the party. This is a wee bit difficult, as PCs gain CP as they adventure, but I'm sure it can be managed.

Example of my idea of an animal:

Hyena
Size/Paradigms: Medium/Intrinsic(Natural)
Hit Dice: 2 base points
Initiative: +2
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 14 (+2 Dex, +2 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+3
Attack: Bite +3 melee (1d6+3)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Powers: Skill Training (Hide, Listen, Spot)
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +1
Qualities: Str 14, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6
Skills: Hide +4, Listen +3, Spot +2
Environment: Warm deserts
Organization: Solitary, pair, or pack (7-16)
Conviction Reward: 6

PirateMonk

2010-05-13, 08:53 PM

Most natural creatures would have the 'Natural' subparadigm, and most magical creatures would have the 'Metaphysical' 'Intrinsic' or 'Immortal' subparadigm.

Natural, as far as I can tell, seems more concerned with mystical forces of nature than actual organisms, so animals would be better off as Intrinsic (Natural) or (Intrinsic), or just unparadigmed, as they are not sentient and thus don't really believe anything.

It's nice to see someone contributing, though.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-14, 01:22 AM

Natural, as far as I can tell, seems more concerned with mystical forces of nature than actual organisms, so animals would be better off as Intrinsic (Natural) or (Intrinsic), or just unparadigmed, as they are not sentient and thus don't really believe anything.

It's nice to see someone contributing, though.

That's a very good point, I'll fix that straight away. I don't think they should be unparadigmed, because paradigms are basically replacing creature type.

Also, sorry to keep loading new stuff onto you, but I've started up a thread to make new abilities in here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152418). I believe ressurecting a dying thread is like making embers back into a fire, you've just gotta keep piling stuff on.

PirateMonk

2010-05-14, 12:11 PM

That's a very good point, I'll fix that straight away. I don't think they should be unparadigmed, because paradigms are basically replacing creature type.

Not necessarily. Paradigms are more concerned with belief than physical nature, and creatures of many types could be of any paradigm. Furthermore, I don't really see how normal animals can really believe in anything.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-14, 05:28 PM

I'm also for keeping types close to the current D20 mechanic for them; we just need to redefine what types we're keeping, what those types mean, and what powers should be inherant to just being something.

Take the undead, for example. Immunity to fortitude effects makes perfect sense. Immunity to mind-affecting? Not so much. A lot of the undead have minds, which should be just as affectable as the minds of the living.

lesser_minion

2010-05-14, 06:50 PM

I think the easiest way to handle types is to come up with a list of 'seeds' which are common to all of the paradigms, and represent the different kinds of thing they can affect.

That way, the only real distinction we have to make between creatures is whether they are 'spirits' - i.e. abstract representations of a seed - or 'manifestations', which would be more literal.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-15, 01:36 AM

On the subject of ability scores, I think that we ought to stick with the standard d20 ones. This is because we're all familiar with it, and it's easier to balance against most existing d20 ones. That said, I don't have anything against re-naming them and changing what they do, but I think that any more than six will become too confusing and unfamiliar.

Also, I'll look back through the thread, but have we come up with how you gain resolve points, like in Djinn in Tonic's powers? If we have, I'll look like an idiot, but no harm asking.

I've edited the 'base class' build to include weapon proficiencies.

PirateMonk

2010-05-15, 09:44 AM

Sticking with just six could be a good idea (and mirrors the six paradigms, which might be positive or negative), but the existing ones are poorly defined and at times nonsensical, so I think we should change them extensively.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-15, 10:34 AM

Not all that different from PHB stuff, but a little more clear:

Fitness: Your physical power. Affects melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, breaking stuff, moving stuff, athletic skills and many power abilities

Fortitude: Your health and resilience. Affects motivation, wound points, fortitude saves, endurance skills and many power abilities

Agility: Your ability to move, bend and react. Affects ranged attack rolls, AC, reflex saves, movement skills and many trick abilities

Alertness: How in-tune you are with your surroundings. Affects sensory skills and many trick abilities

Intelligence: Your memory and capacity for thought and understanding. Affects knowledge-based skills and many spell abilities

Personality: How well you interact with other people and strong your sense of self is. Affects will saving throws, interaction skills and many supernatural abilities

Also, I'm looking for some ideas on how motivation and wound points work. Any contributions?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-15, 12:40 PM

Also, I'm looking for some ideas on how motivation and wound points work. Any contributions?

I need to find my old system. It worked quite well. So yes, I do have ideas...I just need to find them again.

Fortitude shouldn't control both Wound Points and Motivation. Perhaps base Motivation off of Personality, or create a 7th ability called Belief.

lesser_minion

2010-05-15, 01:11 PM

I would have suggested something more along the lines of:

Fitness. Athletic potential, ability to recover quickly from wounds and fatigue. Affects chance of recovering from an injury or exertion, and melee damage. Dexterity. Ability to manipulate things with your hands. Affects melee attack rolls. Resilience. Overall physical toughness. Instinct. Intuition, perception, and ability to respond to things quickly. Affects ranged attack rolls. Reason. Ability to analyse and learn. Affects ability to recover composure. Presence. Strength of will, particularly the ability to exert it on others.

As for the injury system, I was under the impression that was still up for debate.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-15, 01:13 PM

As for the injury system, I was under the impression that was still up for debate.

It is indeed still up for debate. :smallbiggrin:

lesser_minion

2010-05-15, 01:16 PM

I think it might be worth including rules for losing composure after being attacked or injured.

Since loss of composure means "no magic" in the very least, that gives all characters a very good reason to avoid being attacked, but they can still be pretty tough if necessary.

Frozenheart

2010-05-15, 03:10 PM

perhaps a random demoralizing effect if you take enough damage in a single attack, ranging from being unable to use powers to a raging effect and everything in between?

just would like to post for duty.

PirateMonk

2010-05-15, 07:58 PM

lesser_minion

2010-05-15, 09:19 PM

Since Fitness seems to incorporate many aspects of Strength and Constitution, which is a good way to handle it, what's the point of Resilience?

Fitness only covers the 'stamina' element of constitution - resilience is what determines your hitpoints, and your fortitude save. Fitness determines how quickly you recover from tiredness (for simplicity, there probably wouldn't be anything stopping you from getting tired in the first place).

It's basically a case of:

-- Run 30 km in 50 degree heat with no water: Fitness.

-- Drink 40 pints of snakebite in one sitting without getting drunk or rupturing something: Resilience.

PirateMonk

2010-05-15, 10:00 PM

Fitness only covers the 'stamina' element of constitution - resilience is what determines your hitpoints, and your fortitude save. Fitness determines how quickly you recover from tiredness (for simplicity, there probably wouldn't be anything stopping you from getting tired in the first place).

It's basically a case of:

-- Run 30 km in 50 degree heat with no water: Fitness.

-- Drink 40 pints of snakebite in one sitting without getting drunk or rupturing something: Resilience.

Is it really realistic or narratively appealing for those to be entirely separate characteristics, though? They seem fairly related.

ForzaFiori

2010-05-15, 10:30 PM

The way I see it, the difference between Fitness and Resilience is about the same as Strength and Constitution. Fitness is your 1-shot strength. Its how much force you can put behind that one attack, or how fast you can run a sprint. Resilience would be like Endurance. Its how LONG you can keep attacking, or keep running.

Its like how a world class sprinting has excellent Fitness. However, he is probably lacking the resilience. He can run a 3.9 40yd dash, but ask him to run a 5k and he's doomed. On the other hand, a heavy drinker has excellent resilience. he can toss back shots all night. However, when he tries to run, his lack of fitness makes him slow.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-16, 01:14 AM

Looks to me like we've got the basic abilities covered. Now, what do we want for vitality, wounds etc. Keep in mind that, the way this thing is going, it seems 6 is going to be a central number. Perhaps we can create a whole new d6 system? Or not, if no-one but me likes that idea.

PirateMonk

2010-05-16, 01:57 PM

lesser_minion

2010-05-16, 02:42 PM

No, Fitness clearly includes endurance, both from the word and lesser minion's descriptions. Physical power vs. endurance may be a sensible breakdown, but it clearly wasn't what was proposed.

Fitness is a combination of 'athletic potential' (strength and speed, basically) and ability to recover quickly from exertion.

Resilience is heartiness, ability to shrug off wounds, immune system strength, and tolerance for pain.

They are quite different - footballers, for example, are generally good athletes, but according to stereotype, can't stand a paper cut, let alone a broken nail.

ForzaFiori

2010-05-16, 03:18 PM

PirateMonk

2010-05-16, 03:26 PM

Fitness is a combination of 'athletic potential' (strength and speed, basically) and ability to recover quickly from exertion.

Resilience is heartiness, ability to shrug off wounds, immune system strength, and tolerance for pain.

They are quite different - footballers, for example, are generally good athletes, but according to stereotype, can't stand a paper cut, let alone a broken nail.

That makes more sense, though if we want wounds points to have anything to do with ability to absorb damage rather than just push past it, that would realistically involve muscle mass, and thus Fitness.

Also, Resilience sounds like force of will rather than any physical characteristic, which creates asymmetry in the ability scores and is insufficiently distinct from Presence.

It includes recovery time, not endurance. neither one, in fact, actually claims to be the ability to do something repeatedly.

Run 30 km in 50 degree heat with no water: Fitness.

Looks to me like we've got the basic abilities covered. Now, what do we want for vitality, wounds etc. Keep in mind that, the way this thing is going, it seems 6 is going to be a central number. Perhaps we can create a whole new d6 system? Or not, if no-one but me likes that idea.

I think we're still trying to pretend that this is a d20 system.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-16, 03:44 PM

I think we're still trying to pretend that this is a d20 system.

Personally, I'm okay either way...don't know about Gareth though.

lesser_minion

2010-05-16, 04:05 PM

That makes more sense, though if we want wounds points to have anything to do with ability to absorb damage rather than just push past it, that would realistically involve muscle mass, and thus Fitness.

Also, Resilience sounds like force of will rather than any physical characteristic, which creates asymmetry in the ability scores and is insufficiently distinct from Presence.

Resilience is basically your inherent resistance to bodily damage - including loss of health, and wounds.

Note that all of these attributes are mental, at least for player characters - regardless of the situation, a character's Influence (i.e. the magical expression of her beliefs) contributes far more than her actual body ever would.

At about this point, I'm going to facepalm and suggest the following abilities, which actually, you know, fit with the idea:

Might - Ability to quickly recover from exertion, and to do more for any given amount of exertion Resilience - Ability to withstand harm. Grace - Ability to act with finesse Instinct - Ability to quickly notice and respond to things Reason - Ability to analyse things and come to an informed conclusion Presence - Force of will, and ability to exert it upon others.

Since all attributes can be thought of as a reflection of a character's supernatural influence, there are no nonabilities - instead, a creature can have a mix of material abilities, spiritual abilities, or both.

PirateMonk

2010-05-16, 04:15 PM

Resilience is basically your inherent resistance to bodily damage - including loss of health, and wounds.

Note that all of these attributes are mental, at least for player characters - regardless of the situation, a character's Influence (i.e. the magical expression of her beliefs) contributes far more than her actual body ever would.

Fair point.

I'm actually all for upping the ability scores to 8, to give us:

Fitness - Allows you to recover quickly from fatigue, and do better when you exert yourself Resilience - Inherent resistance to adverse physical effects. Dexterity - hand-eye co-ordination Agility - speed of motion Nerve - Ability to keep your cool Presence - strength of will, and ability to exert will upon others Instinct - ability to read quickly into things. Reason - skill at analysing things and coming to an informed conclusion.

It also gives us four logical groupings (physique, finesse, willpower, learning)

That sounds good, though possibly complicated.

lesser_minion

2010-05-16, 04:22 PM

See the revision above - I renamed a few things to hopefully come up with six attributes that both make sense and also do a better job of implying that they represent a creature's supernatural Influence as opposed to physical attributes.

PirateMonk

2010-05-16, 04:43 PM

Those also look good.

So, what should we be talking about at this point, beyond ability scores? We seem to have the paradigms themselves worked out, though we might be able to expand more. Should we discuss injury? Skills? Progression? All of the above?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-16, 04:46 PM

I think discussing Progression might be the most important, as that will tell us if we can use the standard d20 system or not. Given the modular build that the Paradigms have, it seems that we're stepping further and further away from a d20 system...or, at least, the sort of class/level-based d20 system that D&D uses. I'm not sure, for example, what levels would do in the Paradigm system...

lesser_minion

2010-05-16, 05:25 PM

Well, there are a few aesthetic and mechanical concepts that we might want to look at first, since they pretty much determine what limiting factors we can include and how we should use them. Among others, we need some consensus on:

Caution. How cautious should players be? If death is irreversible and can occur as a result of a papercut, characters are going to be far more cautious than if characters are nigh-unkillable and can be resurrected by a papercut.

Restraint. How far do we want characters to exercise restraint when using their powers? The rules should probably provide a good reason for characters not to always use their power to the fullest, and it should be both non-metagame and clearly visible to the characters.

Attrition. Should it be possible to run the characters into the ground?

Denial. Should it be possible to deny a character the opportunity to use some of her powers? If so, how far should this be the case, and how significant should it be?

Spotlighting. Should characters be required to always act as a team, or should they take turns in the spotlight? Or should it be something in between?

Naturalism. Syrielle is a flying demon who can kill with a glance. Marcus is a walking badass who can kill with a sword. Should Syrielle always win a fight between them?

Mystique. How far should the game go out of its way to try to preserve mystique? Diamonds for resurrection spells? No resurrection? Or further?

There are others, but I haven't thought of them yet.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-17, 01:05 AM

O.K, this is simply my idea of things, but it's still an opinion that may be useful.

Restraint. How far do we want characters to exercise restraint when using their powers? The rules should probably provide a good reason for characters not to always use their power to the fullest, and it should be both non-metagame and clearly visible to the characters.

Well, I think we should allow them to whirl around with their spells and rays and all sorts, and we already have been thinking of a system of refreshing 'resolve' in the (now at -1 hp) powers thread.

Attrition. Should it be possible to run the characters into the ground?

I'm against this idea. I think that it ought to be possible to tire them out, yes, but they should always have at least some power at their fingertips.

Denial. Should it be possible to deny a character the opportunity to use some of her powers? If so, how far should this be the case, and how significant should it be?

I think that it ought to be possible, but no more than one power (or perhaps a few lower-level powers at higher levels) per encounter.

Spotlighting. Should characters be required to always act as a team, or should they take turns in the spotlight? Or should it be something in between?

I'm for teamwork. I think that that adds a really fun element to the game. Perhaps they can stray from the team, for story purposes, but will often take significant risks doing so.

Naturalism. Syrielle is a flying demon who can kill with a glance. Marcus is a walking badass who can kill with a sword. Should Syrielle always win a fight between them?

I think that we've already agreed that martial characters get powers equal to those of magic ones. I'm for Marcus having the 'distant strike' power and throwing his sword at her from 80ft away, well out of the range of her gaze attack.

Mystique. How far should the game go out of its way to try to preserve mystique? Diamonds for resurrection spells? No resurrection? Or further?

I'd say that this works differently depending on your paradigm. Bargaining resurrectors gain it at low levels, but have to pay a great price, perhaps even their own life. Intrinsics get it at higher levels, they can use it without many penalties but only on themselves. Naturalists gain it at still higher levels, and have to absorb primal energy to do it. Metaphysicists would have to wait until really high levels to be able to warp reality that far, and I imagine it would take a very long ritual. Immortalists would gain it at higher levels, and would have to undergo intense prayer for the return of the soul. I don't imagine disciplinarians being able to use resurrection powers.

EDIT: Oops! Sorry for casting Wall of Text everyone!

lesser_minion

2010-05-17, 08:46 AM

Well, none of them are meant to be "you can do this, or you can't" - you can include them to different extents, for example.

Restraint is about stopping players from using one single ridiculously powerful attack over and over again - I guess you could also chalk up 'Variety - the degree to which different encounters should require different approaches'.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-17, 11:47 AM

Part of the answers to these questions is in how we want our game to feel. In an epic game, perhaps ressurection exists - at great cost (example; in Scion: Hero, The Book of Going Forth by Day allows one to ressurect one's friends - if you can make it to the underworld and brave its dangers to retrieve their souls from the gods of death). In an action-adventure game, maybe it's cheap. Horror games might not have ressurection at all, and frankly, belief enters a lot into it as well. This is, after all, the Paradigm Project.

I'll drop in some notes on setting design later, but right now I want to comment on the question of the system; we've been building off of an OGL D20 system right now, and I think I want to keep, at the very least, the dice. But Djinn's right - we move further and further away from the standard D20 system as we, the creators, decide where we want our game to go and evolve. So, let's keep the parts of the system that we want or need - like the dice - and start scrapping the rest in order of importance.

So, I think to start with, let's go for the thing a lot of players like best - combat. How do we want fights to play out? Final Fantasy 10 uses a system where weapons modify attacks, but the characters' stats are the ultimate source of all damage/accuracy/et cetera. Do we want to do attack vs. dodge/parry? Do we want to include stunting? How do we want to include the environment? Represent mobility?

Frozenheart

2010-05-17, 11:48 AM

the only thing i personally think different from scribe is about the characters being atritionable (not sure if that's a word, bear with me), maybe when it comes to the characters being terribly wounded or something similar. if i uderstand the concept of the game at all, Deus Ex Machina should play at least some role on whether or not the pc's survive.

PirateMonk

2010-05-21, 07:51 PM

Is this dead? Again?

Caution. How cautious should players be? If death is irreversible and can occur as a result of a papercut, characters are going to be far more cautious than if characters are nigh-unkillable and can be resurrected by a papercut.

To preserve a properly epic feel, it should be hard for the PCs to die, but the game should still punish utter stupidity.

Restraint. How far do we want characters to exercise restraint when using their powers? The rules should probably provide a good reason for characters not to always use their power to the fullest, and it should be both non-metagame and clearly visible to the characters.

Single win buttons are boring. PCs should be encouraged to vary their tactics, but should still be able to do whatever they want in many cases, though likely a some cost and loss of effectiveness if it wouldn't work well in the situation.

Attrition. Should it be possible to run the characters into the ground?

Yes, but it should be difficult.

Denial. Should it be possible to deny a character the opportunity to use some of her powers? If so, how far should this be the case, and how significant should it be?

I like the idea of a "lockdown" build which focuses on doing this, though it could get pretty annoying. For other characters, this ability should be limited.

Spotlighting. Should characters be required to always act as a team, or should they take turns in the spotlight? Or should it be something in between?

In general, the latter, but some challenges should be nearly impossible without teamwork.

Naturalism. Syrielle is a flying demon who can kill with a glance. Marcus is a walking badass who can kill with a sword. Should Syrielle always win a fight between them?

Assuming they are the same "level," it should be about even. If Marcus catches her by surprise, he should often just be able to jump into the air/throw his sword and chop her in half before she can react. Even if he doesn't, he should still have a good chance of shrugging off her gaze by sheer force of awesome.

Mystique. How far should the game go out of its way to try to preserve mystique? Diamonds for resurrection spells? No resurrection? Or further?

Only to the extent where it enhances epicness. At the lowest levels, resurrection should be extremely impractical, if not impossible. At slightly higher levels, it should require a quest to the underworld or a task to gain the favor of a god. Later, resurrection powers should become available. Diamonds seem kind of silly, but might make sense for some Discipline(Metaphysic) mages.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-22, 10:11 AM

Some thoughts on how to accomplish things we wanna accomplish;

Transcendence

"You think you're so awesome just because you have godlike power."

The name up there is a placeholder, but essentially speaking, Transcendence is our "level replacement". Transcendence is a universal trait measuring how far the character has gone from mundanity into legend. As Transcendence increases, the character increasingly bends, then shatters the laws of physics. Examples include running up walls, shrugging off hails of bullets (though that might be part of whatever HP mechanic we come up with), balancing on floating corpses, transcendant beauty, et cetera.

Kill, Kill, Kill!

"If violence was your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it."

There are quite a few existing games we can rip pages from here:

Movement: Every character can move their speed (however we determine it) every turn. That's right, every turn, including ones that aren't their own. All movement occurs at the same time in a turn.

Break S#!t: Aside from implementing a system for characters taking damage for being slammed into objects, an improved version of the improvised weapon rules would go a long way into incorporating environmental damage. Honestly, if we simplify things, players will be hurling things (and being hurled by things) through walls in no time.

Can't Touch This: Alrighty, I like Djinn's idea of opposed rolls for combat. Dodge rolls are definitely in. I'm thinking some fashion of "block" roll as well (using armor, parrying, and shields). Fortitude and will saves, in some form or another, are definitely in. We don't want any truly "unstoppable" techniques. A barely-Transcendant character might not be able to block a flying boulder, but a powerful mage should be.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-22, 10:25 AM

Hmmm...on the note of Transcendence.

What if, rather than your hit points increasing, your ability to withstand damage increased? For instance, a 1 Transcendence Paradigm Mage hit with the Immortal Paradigm Ability Fist of the Lord on High might take 30 damage from such an attack (or however much...numbers were randomly chosen, since we're not sure of how health works yet). A 21 Transcendence Paradigm Mage, however, might only take 10 damage from such an attack...or even less.

Bergor Terraf

2010-05-22, 02:52 PM

Can't Touch This: Alrighty, I like Djinn's idea of opposed rolls for combat. Dodge rolls are definitely in. I'm thinking some fashion of "block" roll as well (using armor, parrying, and shields).

I like that. Maybe characters could chose to make a block roll (decrease damage), dodge roll (evade attack completely) or parry roll (try to evade attack, if not successful, decrease damage, but less successful than dodge or block). Than you could "play around" with this base to add more variety: specialisation in a type of roll could lead to improved ones (block could deal recoil damage to melee attacker, dodge could setup opponent for quick counter attack) or the option to attack all out on your turn giving you penalty on your defensive rolls for the rest of the turn.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-22, 04:38 PM

Here's what I'm thinking with regards to dodge/block;

Dodge either negates damage entirely or halves it, depending on the attack in question as well as by how badly you spank the attacker. A failed dodge roll causes a minor increase in damage, and you only get partial armor soak (see below).

Djinn's idea with the Transcendance amounts more or less to a "soak" score. So, blocking brings into play one's full Armor soak (as opposed to, say, half of the applicable score). Block rolls benefit from bonuses due to, say, using a shield or knowing how to parry.

Do we want to be able to "parry" with projectiles? It'd certainly be cool.

At the moment, Djinn and I are thinking of a dice pool system, though others are in the offing. D6 or D10 are currently winning, but we'd love your opinions. Also in consideration are Scion's "tick" rules (brilliant, if cumbersome for PbP), Deadlands-style dice rolling, Window stats, and various others.

PirateMonk

2010-05-22, 06:40 PM

How exactly do dice pools work? I'm not very familiar with them.

Hmmm...on the note of Transcendence.

What if, rather than your hit points increasing, your ability to withstand damage increased? For instance, a 1 Transcendence Paradigm Mage hit with the Immortal Paradigm Ability Fist of the Lord on High might take 30 damage from such an attack (or however much...numbers were randomly chosen, since we're not sure of how health works yet). A 21 Transcendence Paradigm Mage, however, might only take 10 damage from such an attack...or even less.

The only difference between increased HP and increased resistance is that the numbers are bigger with the former. Eventually, the resistance approach could either require fractional hit points or end up too quantum.

lesser_minion

2010-05-22, 08:49 PM

For injuries, I still think the simplest way forward is to go with a fairly gritty system, but coupled with an easy (and common) method for mitigating injuries.

As a very simple way of doing that:

Confidence: Transcendence + Some number.
Influence: Points spent to employ powers. When renewed, equal to the character's current confidence.

Attacks always have direct effects, which can be mitigated by spending Confidence to dodge, parry, or regenerate the blow at the last instant. That allows for attrition and denial, but characters have the means to prevent it.

It also creates a positive feedback loop - a character who narrowly avoids a hit isn't screwed, but she's weaker than she was before. It gives players a very good reason to not want to be stabbed, which should make for more 'natural' roleplaying (not being able to do anything is no fun. Not being able to do anything because you played like a retard should not provoke sympathy).

This presumably means that most attacks should follow a scaling effects system, which probably isn't an issue.

The effects could also include things like blindness, weakness, and fatigue, and better still, they could actually smart. People can be blinded, dismembered, decapitated, disembowelled, and deafened. And none of these things would be appreciably more artificial than the basic mechanic for stabbing someone.

I think characters should have a modal element - i.e. you can inspire people, or you can go berserk and murder people, but not both at the same time (we are trying to make something that doesn't feel artificial, and while stabbing someone might raise morale, that certainly doesn't justify a mechanic where stabbing people boosts everyone else's capabilities).

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-23, 03:05 PM

For injuries, I still think ...

That's a very clever idea. How about attacks only work on people who have a certain level of confidence (more powerful attacks would have a higher confidence maximum). If the character's confidence is low enough, the attack takes effect and damages their confidence. If the character's confidence is too high, the attack just decreases their confidence. The character would affect the base maximum confidence and confidence damage. Weapons and abilities would affect what actually happens and would add modifiers to the base confidence stats. Examples (all numbers randomly made up):

Redgar the fighter attacks Mialee the wizard with his greatsword. The sword has the following affects available: Wound, Maim, Weaken, Sever, Kill. He goes for Wound, as he knows Mialee's confidence will be high at the start of the encounter. Sadly, he misses, and so the attack has no effect. Mialee then tries to hit him with her Devil's Touch spell. She hits, but Redgar has 10 confidence, too high for the Blinding and Paralysing abilities of her Devil's Touch. However, because she hits, Redgar's confidence is reduced to 7. Redgar then tries to attack her with his Weaken ability. He hits, and Mialee has only 6 confidence, meaning that she takes 2 damage to her Fitness ability and loses three confidence. Mialee, enraged, casts Death Blast. However, it only affects creatures with 0 confidence, and, instead, Redgar takes 4 confidence damage. Redgar, knowing both of them are losing confidence fast, tries his Sever ability. He easily hits, and Mialee's arm departs her body, meaning her spells are harder to cast and that she has 0 confidence. Despite this, on her next turn, Mialee's Devil's Touch hits, and Redgar is Blinded but not Paralysed (he made his save against the paralysis) and takes 3 confidence damage, placing him at a total of 0. However, it is now his turn, and he gets a luck hit with his greatsword for the Kill effect, felling Mialee once and for all.

PirateMonk

2010-05-23, 04:51 PM

That's a very clever idea. How about attacks only work on people who have a certain level of confidence (more powerful attacks would have a higher confidence maximum). If the character's confidence is low enough, the attack takes effect and damages their confidence. If the character's confidence is too high, the attack just decreases their confidence. The character would affect the base maximum confidence and confidence damage. Weapons and abilities would affect what actually happens and would add modifiers to the base confidence stats. Examples (all numbers randomly made up):

Redgar the fighter attacks Mialee the wizard with his greatsword. The sword has the following affects available: Wound, Maim, Weaken, Sever, Kill. He goes for Wound, as he knows Mialee's confidence will be high at the start of the encounter. Sadly, he misses, and so the attack has no effect. Mialee then tries to hit him with her Devil's Touch spell. She hits, but Redgar has 10 confidence, too high for the Blinding and Paralysing abilities of her Devil's Touch. However, because she hits, Redgar's confidence is reduced to 7. Redgar then tries to attack her with his Weaken ability. He hits, and Mialee has only 6 confidence, meaning that she takes 2 damage to her Fitness ability and loses three confidence. Mialee, enraged, casts Death Blast. However, it only affects creatures with 0 confidence, and, instead, Redgar takes 4 confidence damage. Redgar, knowing both of them are losing confidence fast, tries his Sever ability. He easily hits, and Mialee's arm departs her body, meaning her spells are harder to cast and that she has 0 confidence. Despite this, on her next turn, Mialee's Devil's Touch hits, and Redgar is Blinded but not Paralysed (he made his save against the paralysis) and takes 3 confidence damage, placing him at a total of 0. However, it is now his turn, and he gets a luck hit with his greatsword for the Kill effect, felling Mialee once and for all.

That's simpler than the GURPS-like dodge/block/parry system discussed above, but also less fun and flexible. At the very least, characters above the Confidence limit for an effect should be allowed to choose between losing Confidence or suffering the effect but remaining resistant to later, possibly nastier attacks.

lesser_minion

2010-05-23, 05:41 PM

A -4 hit costs you 4 confidence, or it imposes a penalty. I don't really see the need for an "attacks only work on people at a certain confidence or below".

As far as GURPS-style play is concerned - I guess being able to roll a defence against an attack is more interesting. I'm sitting on the fence as far as active defence vs. passive defence is concerned, however.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-24, 01:21 AM

A -4 hit costs you 4 confidence, or it imposes a penalty.

Ah, of course, that makes a lot more sense. Basically, you can work up enough effort to block it, or you can take the hit. However, if we're doing it that way, we ought to call it something other than confidence, as I imagine being hit would make you less confident than just shrugging it off. How about endurance?

Also, another problem is - as attacks get more severe, do they cost more or less confidence to shrug off? If we have it as more, that means that everybody will always be hitting with their most severe at-will attack, and less powerful abilities will never get used. It we have it as less, that doesn't feel very realistic. Any ideas?

Maybe we can use 'as severity increases, so does endurance cost' and make it so all attacks take influence to use, and more powerful and severe attacks taking more influence. I imagine that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the amount of influence it costs be equal to the confidence damage it imposes.

On the matter of attack and defence, I thought that you only have to go through the whole confidence thing if the attack hits. My favourite type of attack vs defence is the 4e attack vs passive defence. I think we could mimic the fact that people can sometimes try extra hard not to get hit by allowing them to spend influence to temporarily increase their defence scores.

ForzaFiori

2010-05-24, 02:12 AM

I like the costing influence to use big attacks. Perhaps have a basic attack (the "wound" from Scribe's example) not cost any though. Also, perhaps have major things (felling an opponent for example) give small boosts to confidence. I could see Redgar finishing Mialee and then thinking "hey, I really AM the man" as his confidence goes up to like, 5 or so. Not full, but it definitely gives him a boost for his next fight.

lesser_minion

2010-05-24, 06:33 AM

You could lay down a few milestones that can be used to restore confidence.

As for differences in attack severity, the number of successes you roll for 'damage' gives the severity of the attack. It is a function of how big and dramatic the attack is, but that's handled by adding extra damage dice (and yes, those cost influence).

This requires there to be a small number of 'base' effects, from which other powers can easily be customised.

The reason I chose the name 'confidence' is because 'Endurance' doesn't have the right connotations - we want something that implies that it's a reference to the character's mental and spriritual state, not something generic.

'Conviction' could fit, I guess, if characters needed to gain Confidence points to raise Transcendence.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-24, 01:19 PM

Dice Pools are used in systems that only use one or two kinds of dice. Essentially speaking, you combine a number of factors (typically, Attribute + Skill + Miscellaneous (if any) - Penalties (if any)) and then proceed to roll that many dice. X or above is a "hit" or "success", and the number thereof determines your success.

For example, let's make up some arbitrary numbers:

Tordek (Male Dwarf, Dex 4/Weaponry 3/+1 Axe) attacks a beholder in an area of dazzling lights. Tordek's dice pool would normally be 8 (4 + 3 + 1) D6es, with any roll of 5 or 6 being a success. The lights partially blind him for a -1 environmental penalty. He rolls seven dice and comes up 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6. Three successes translate directly to damage!

Obviously, the system we're creating needn't necessarily work exactly like that, but dice pools have been used to great effect by several systems (Shadowrun, Scion, World of Darkness) and they eliminate the problem of getting bonuses so large as to make oneself completely invincible.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-24, 01:33 PM

lesser_minion

2010-05-24, 01:44 PM

By the by, do we want damage to be physical, abstracted, or awesome meter running low (as in, damage only starts "seeming" physical when you've had the sh*t well and truly beat out of you. See Dead Fantasy 3 & 5).

So far, what we have mixes all three of those, really.

Spending confidence to avoid a wound is pretty abstract - what happens when you do so is left to the narrative.

If you can't, or you don't, then you start taking physical damage, which falls into "awesomeness meter low".

Finally, confidence can be restored by a few different factors, and there's basically going to have to be some sort of "dramatic recovery" system to the game.

That allows people to fight at full strength while filled with crossbow bolts and technically at -9.

<hr>

OK, for an upgrade to the earlier suggestion:

Psyche: Tracks how far the character is from death.

Clarity: Determines the character's remaining focus.

Every incoming attack has two effects - damage, which represents the toll taken in attempting to endure the hit, and a base effect. The base effect is always something scalable, and depends on the character's remaining psyche (or, possibly, her current number of wound points).

Damage is distributed between wounds and clarity, and other effects occur if they push a character's condition far enough.

Regarding the turn sequence, I'm in favour of out-of-turn movement, but against ticks.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-24, 03:42 PM

The way I thought we were having damage (or, rather, negative effects from attacks) work is that each attack carries with it a potential negative condition. The attacker has to hit with the ability for anything to happen. If they do, the target has to choose between suffering that negative effect or expending conviction (confidence, endurance, whatever). There is no concept of abstract 'damage'. Of course, everybody would choose a conviction penalty over a death effect, but conviction runs out.

On the subject of terms, there is such a thing as mental endurance, such as how much combat you can take before you start to tire and give up.

EDIT: ooh, sixth page. I declare this thread resurrected.

EDIT 2, PLEASE READ
I'm afraid my network blocks the 'reply' and 'quote' bits, but not the 'edit' bit. I'll be able to return to normal posting on the weekend, for now I'll just have to edit this post and hope someone scrolls up.

You take some damage. Normally, it would be deducted from psyche, but you have the option to deduct it from clarity instead.
Additionally, the attack has an effect depending on how much psyche you have left over afterwards.
It makes the decision a little harder - you don't want to take a clarity hit, but taking a psyche hit makes you more vulnerable to certain effects.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick my head up and say that I don't like that system. It would be fine if we were going for an abstract representation of damage, but we're not. I think having two damage pools overcomplicates it, really. If you need extra strength/protection it should come from your influence. Also, having 'different effects from attacks depending on your psyche' means that every attack will have to have a great, long, boring list of different possible effects half of which you'll never use and that won't have any chance of doing anything at higher levels. I don't mean to be harsh, but I actually much prefer the system I thought we'd already settled on, where you choose between sucking it up, but at the risk of not being able to later, or taking the hit.

Here's an example of what I imagine an attack description would look like in my system:

Kill (Axe) : Confidence cost 10 + Might modifier. Effect: target dies. Mitigated effect: target takes 1 Resilience drain for an hour.

And in the psyche/clarity system:

Kill (Axe) : psyche cost 10 + Might modifier. Clarity cost 5 + Might modifier.
Effects: 100% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for one round
90% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for two rounds
80% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience drain for two rounds
70% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience drain for three rounds
60% psyche: Target takes 3 Resilience drain for three rounds
50% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for an hour
40% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for a day
30% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience damage
20% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience damage
10% psyche: Target is dead

EDIT 3

I'm still stuck up here for the moment, I'm afraid.

Lesser Minion, I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Remember this is Djinn's and Gareth's project at heart. I tried to blind them with mechanics and turn this thread somewhere where they didn't want it to go, and I've ended up regretting it.

Personally, Djinn and Gareth's system gets my seal of approval. It has plenty of room to expand on, but is much less complex and abstract than your system, to be honest. It has an element of chance without complete randomness, it has a way characters can advance to very high levels of toughness without seeming artificial, and it seems to really support the ideas that this project was started with. The naming of the offensive and defensive stats isn't amazing, but the core idea and design is strong, I think.

When people are being stubborn, compromise can sometimes be difficult, and the majority has to win. I'm afraid that, here, the majority happens to be me, Djinn and Gareth. Either face that, or come up with a way that incorporates both views of how things should work but is still not too complex.

On a lighter note, some ideas for stat names:

Paradigm: Offensive|Defensive
Sacrifice: Sincerity|Promise
Discipline: Focus|Calm
Immortal: Servitude|Favour
Intrinsic: Power|Endurance
Metaphysical: Prowess|Warp
Natural: Primal|Recluse

e.g: Mr Con Leche the Disciplinary (Sacrificial) warrior has Discipline as his active paradigm. Ms Mit Milch the Immortalist (Metaphysicist) has Metaphysical as her active paradigm. Mr Leche attacks Ms Milch with his legendary attack, Strength Through Sacrifice. He chooses a penalty, which has an accompanying bonus to his attack pool. He chooses blindness for one round, and so gains +1 dice in his pool. He therefore rolls 8 (3 Might / 4 Focus / 1 Miscellaneous) dice, a 9 or 10 is of significance. He rolls 3 above nine, and so his attack rating is 3. Ms Milch defends with her Warp, rolling 6 dice (2 Reason, 4 Warp) plus 3 as she spends 3 Influence to defend against this famously devastating attack. Sadly, she rolls 2 above nine and so must take the full effect of the attack. She takes 5 damage to Might and Resilience, and another hit of the attack automatically kills her.

lesser_minion

2010-05-24, 04:19 PM

PirateMonk

2010-05-24, 04:48 PM

What would clarity do, other than provide a secondary injury pool?

lesser_minion

2010-05-24, 05:25 PM

Clarity is your mana cap. Either per round or per refresh, depending on what everyone else thinks.

Basically, what confidence was before I revised it.

The main difference between the psyche/clarity system and the confidence system is that characters always suffer the effect, and the damage makes the character more vulnerable to subsequent attacks.

There is a slight risk associated with the system, in that players might have trouble getting the fact that the amount of 'damage' dealt by an attack doesn't necessarily correspond to the physical effect any more.

Full version:

Relevant stats:

Psyche. This is a measure of how far a character is from death. The victim of an attack's remaining psyche determines what the attack's immediate (and persistent) effects are beyond damage. Clarity. This is a measure of the character's remaining capacity to focus on the battle. Clarity may be sacrificed in response to damage, representing the character shifting her focus onto survival as opposed to more useful powers (should this decision be reversible?) Influence. The points a character spends to perform paradigm techniques. A character's influence is capped at her current clarity.

An attack that hits the character and isn't soaked properly deals an amount of damage, which can either be taken from the character's psyche or from clarity.

Then, any status effects associated with the attack are determined. These are based on the character's remaining psyche as a result of the hit.

PirateMonk

2010-05-24, 06:33 PM

lesser_minion

2010-05-25, 01:29 PM

That's a good system, though I don't really like the term "Influence." I still think allowing players to choose between different defenses with varying effects rather than just abstracting it as loss of Clarity would be more interesting, but speed and simplicity are also important concerns.

I imagine that defences would work like a stance anyway - "I prepare to dodge and block any attacks that come my way using the Stance of Suitably Cheesy Ominous-Sounding Name", in essence.

The "desparation defences" that actually cost psyche or clarity are basically just particularly dramatic versions of the defences you'd use normally. They may also leave a small cosmetic injury, at the discretion of the player.

Unless someone planned to drop the abstraction of only the most decisive attacks ever being rolled for.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-25, 03:34 PM

Alright...I was tossing some ideas around with Gareth on the phone today. What do people think of something like the following?

Conviction and Vitality are two separate statistics.
Vitality is basically meaningless unless you run out of Conviction.
Conviction is used to prevent or mitigate attacks.
A d10 dice-pool system, with active attacks and defense.
Conviction can entirely negate an attack, or leave a chance for negation.

Further, an offensive and defensive attack for each Paradigm:

Sacrifice: Devotion | Love
Discipline: Resolve | Focus
Immortal: Faith | Belief
Intrinsic: Soul | Spirit
Metaphysical: Reason | Intellect
Natural: Unity | Harmony

These combine with your ability scores to make up your attacking and defending abilities. For instance:

Tyler Vici, a powerful magus focused in Sacrifice, wishes to attack Dorian Rike, a potent Intrinsic and Discipline practitioner. Tyler is resorting to some rather coarse magic, in the form of a wave of flame unearthed from the netherworld. Because of the brutal, direct nature of the attack, it is Strength based. Because it's Sacrifice based, his love for power is the driving force.

Tyler uses Awaken the Sleeping Earth, and rolls Strength + Love against Dorian's defenses. Since it's a speed-based dodge, Dorian will be using his Agility. The power also targets Unity or Faith, as being one with the planet or having a higher power protecting you can help in this situation. Choosing the higher of the two, Dorian rolls Agility + Unity.

If Dorian wins, he successfully evades the attack, or he somehow manages to negate Tyler's magic. Either way, he suffers no ill effects.

But let's say Dorian gains 3 successes, and Tyler, being a master at this, gains 8 successes. Dorian now either has to suffer the full effects of the attack (likely dying as it plows through his meager Vitality), or spend Conviction. Spending 5 Conviction will negate the attack completely (in short, matching your opponent's number of successes). If Dorian doesn't have that much Conviction, however, he may attempt to mitigate the effect. For each 1 Conviction spent, he rolls either 1 or 2d10 (not sure which is more balanced). If he gets a single success, the effect is mitigated. If he rolls a 10, he successfully negates the attack as if he had spent Conviction sufficient to nullify it.

Thoughts? In short, every power has a mitigation effect, and a full effect. It also specifies an attack combination (or choice of combination), and declares the defense or defenses the victim can choose to utilize. Negating an attack is easy, but players can choose to be risky (or play wisely) by spending less Conviction and taking their chances with the effects of weaker powers.

lesser_minion

2010-05-25, 04:32 PM

I think that's just about reasonable, although I still think more layers of effect would be a good thing.

The rolls to mitigate an effect slightly worry me, however, and I still think there should be some scope for being injured regardless of your result (you've already had your chance to block the attack, after all).

While actively-rolled defences are OK, I'd prefer to see stances, rather than having characters declare a defence every time they get attacked. Having to break out the mass combat rules any time more than two people show up makes me a sad narrator.

Looking up the combination of stats to use as a defence can get pretty annoying at times as well.

As for stat names, having names that mean incredibly similar things is going to get seriously confusing.

@TheLonelyScribe:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick my head up and say that I don't like that system. It would be fine if we were going for an abstract representation of damage, but we're not. I think having two damage pools overcomplicates it, really. If you need extra strength/protection it should come from your influence. Also, having 'different effects from attacks depending on your psyche' means that every attack will have to have a great, long, boring list of different possible effects half of which you'll never use and that won't have any chance of doing anything at higher levels. I don't mean to be harsh, but I actually much prefer the system I thought we'd already settled on, where you choose between sucking it up, but at the risk of not being able to later, or taking the hit.

Here's an example of what I imagine an attack description would look like in my system:

Kill (Axe) : Confidence cost 10 + Might modifier. Effect: target dies. Mitigated effect: target takes 1 Resilience drain for an hour.

And in the psyche/clarity system:

Kill (Axe) : psyche cost 10 + Might modifier. Clarity cost 5 + Might modifier.
Effects: 100% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for one round
90% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for two rounds
80% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience drain for two rounds
70% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience drain for three rounds
60% psyche: Target takes 3 Resilience drain for three rounds
50% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for an hour
40% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience drain for a day
30% psyche: Target takes 1 Resilience damage
20% psyche: Target takes 2 Resilience damage
10% psyche: Target is dead

This is not how I would run things.

For a start, damage is based entirely on the difference in performance between the attacker and the defender - see Djinn's example. So that isn't even present as a stat.

You wouldn't need that many effects - just two or three. The scope of the effect scales with the amount of damage done, and the exact type of effect varies with the remaining psyche. So in your example, it would be more:

Psyche over 12 : Resilience is drained (-2) for [Damage] rounds.
Psyche over 6 : Resilience is drained (-2) for [Damage] hours.
Psyche over 3 : Resilience is damaged (-2).
Psyche of 3 or less: Victim dies.

You're still being asked to choose between taking the hit or ignoring it, but the idea was to introduce a bit more dramatic potential (in the option to redistribute damage), give characters a little bit of a buffer before they start being seriously impaired, and also allowing for all attacks to have an impact, even if it's temporary.

Also, before, I expected it to be like this:

1 damage: Resilience drained (-2) until end of scene 3 damage: resilience drained (-2) for 1 hour 5 damage: resilience damaged (-2) 7 damage: Victim killed outright.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-25, 04:39 PM

The rolls to mitigate an effect slightly worry me, however, and I still think there should be some scope for being injured regardless of your result (you've already had your chance to block the attack, after all).

The thing is that this allows us to have a much wider range of effects. We're not looking for an "I hit, you're dead" style of play, and the chance to spend less at the risk of NOT blocking the attack adds a risk/reward element to the game, as well as allowing last ditch heroic stands.

While actively-rolled defences are OK, I'd prefer to see stances, rather than having characters declare a defence every time they get attacked. Having to break out the mass combat rules any time more than two people show up makes me a sad narrator.

Examples, perchance?

Looking up the combination of stats to use as a defence can get pretty annoying at times as well.

I've done it before...it's not that bad.

As for stat names, having names that mean incredibly similar things is going to get seriously confusing.

At first, perhaps. But after a session or two? I don't think so. This may, however, just be me.

lesser_minion

2010-05-25, 05:15 PM

The thing is that this allows us to have a much wider range of effects. We're not looking for an "I hit, you're dead" style of play, and the chance to spend less at the risk of NOT blocking the attack adds a risk/reward element to the game, as well as allowing last ditch heroic stands.

Spoilered for length:

I wouldn't ask for an "I hit, you're dead" style, but I think having a character's resistance slowly eaten away as she keeps getting attacked would make things easier to understand, and a little less artificial.

For a start, the narrative becomes clearer despite having a sort of hitpoints - the first time you hit Syrielle with the flying axe attack, she stalls, but quickly recovers and flies off again.

However, she's a bit tired - her resistance is weaker than it was - so the next time you attack her, she stalls, doesn't recover, and crash-lands. She gets back up again, but everyone involved has a much clearer idea of how the fight's going (i.e. that Syrielle is getting slaughtered).

If you can arbitrarily endure any attack, then there is no (even partly) non-metagame way of telling how the fight's going, and once you're in that situation, randomness only exacerbates it.

Randomness would be a good move if you were going with the "damage makes a character more vulnerable and less able to recover" rule, since such a rule would run into predictability issues.

I think the ability to get back up for a dramatic last stand would be better handled by giving characters a limited way to get Conviction back (see also: Tifa's flashback (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekJHJbMpQgM)), rather than having a way to hold on without conviction.

Especially if conviction loss still has the consequences I suggested.

Examples, perchance?

I'm talking about the way defensive powers work, rather than the basic framework.

In essence, I think defensive powers should work something along the lines of "I adopt the Eternal Warrior Stance for 4 influence points". The defences included in that stance are then available, and you can use the best applicable power.

The alternative would be for a character to be hit, declare that they want to use Eternal Warrior Parry in response, and then get attacked a few more times and have no influence to attack with.

The ability to choose the extent to which you focus on attack or on defence also obviates the need for some artificial berserker rage power that adds absolutely nothing of value to the game.

I've done it before...it's not that bad.

Perhaps.

At first, perhaps. But after a session or two? I don't think so. This may, however, just be me.

It is still seriously off-putting, especially when you get to "reason" and "intellect", which are almost completely synonymous. And it means more sessions before you do get used to it.

The difference between two attributes should be fairly intuitive - your suggestion doesn't really meet that criterion.

Maybe we should go back and look at our objectives - that way, we can make sure we come up with something that works with all of them.

Regardless of how abstract the damage system is, we need the following to be true:

Narrative should be fairly easy to derive, and there should be some sort of cue as to how well a character is doing.
Dramatic recovery should be supported. This includes a mix of events that reinforce a character's desire to succeed, and simple bottled heroic resolve.
Mooks should die easily, and shouldn't need any serious changes to the game mechanics - in essence, while mooks can have low stats, there should be no "minion rule".
A wide range of effects should be supported.

As far as powers are concerned, a set of robust guidelines for designing a power should be in place.

A game that depends on its narrator and troupe to maintain balance, but provides the tools needed for the troupe to expand it easily, is infinitely better than a game that is balanced for uncooperative players, but fails to provide the tools needed to expand it within its scope. Bad troupes have bad games - any effort used to try and change that is wasted effort.

Before anyone pulls out 4th edition, bear in mind that it doesn't try to be balanced at the expense of reduced ability to expand within scope, it tries to be balanced at the expense of reduced scope.

Lord_Gareth

2010-05-27, 12:38 PM

I support the lack of a "minion rule" (see also Scion); it cumbers things down, and in any event, Tifa (after a serious spanking) does get brought down by sufficient applications of ninja. As for what I believe our goals are for combat:

- Combat should be fast-paced and intense. Enemies crash into each other in last-ditch attempts to interrupt spells, gun bunnies jockey for position as bullets collide in mid-air and the environment suffers as beings that could only laughably be called "mortal" do battle across it.

- Players should feel like heroes or super-human beings, not like fifth wheels or mooks. See the problems with the current Fighter for a great example of that last one.

- A wide range of effects - as well as player creativity - should be supported. A well-directed wave of fire melts the asphalt on the street, turning it into a steaming mire. A crushing fist from the heavens slams into a skyscraper, knocking down onto a gigantic monster. Above all, cunning should definitely be rewarded.

Which also brings me to this - yes, theoretically, we can have magic do anything. But there are probably some places we shouldn't go. Time Stop. Wish. Anything involving time travel. Turning the battlefield two-dimensional. We should definitely set what parts we're banning and what parts might just be flavor. One Paradigm character might represent a power that increases her Strength by turning into a woman-wolf hybrid, for example.

lesser_minion

2010-05-27, 02:47 PM

That's another good reason to design powers in such a way that effects can be quickly derived. We have no idea where any given troupe is going to go, and even less idea how they will respond. All we can really do is give them the building blocks.

Transformations are likely to be flavour, although we could certainly come up with a stance system to smooth that out a little.

I think we definitely need to work out the basics if we're going to make a system that handles a range of different effects and does so smoothly.

One thing I should probably note here is that the stats should have very obvious relevance to what's happening - otherwise, the entire game is going to descend into a quagmire of arguing over which stats apply.

As for the dice pool, I'd be tempted to swap that out for something totals-based (e.g. something like the old d6 system). I don't really mind whatever we do there, however.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-28, 03:37 PM

O.K, huge unloading of ideas because I didn't feel able to express my self properly stuck at the top of the page, remember, these are just my crazy ramblings, no need to take heed:

On the dice pool: I think that we should use d6s, just so that we can feel special, and to fit the magical 6 theme that we seem to have going. A result of a 5 or a 6 is a success. There are no critical successes, but if you roll all successes you can add 0.5 times the amount of successes you rolled to your result.

On abilities: I think they should range from 1-20, and should be bought on a point-for point basis, characters normally getting 80 points. I like lesser minion's 6 stats (might, resilience, grace, reason, instinct and personality) and think we should use those. Ability bonuses equal ability/2. Reason cut-off point for sentience is 5. A creature with an Res of 5 is in-between, basically huge mental defects but almost fully sentient.

On influence: Maximum = transcendence. 1/5 transcendence regained each round, which represents 6 seconds.

On powers: I imagine powers, for the sake of simplicity and range within scope, working kind of like 3.5 epic spells, with a certain amount of basic effects and a bunch of mitigating and improving factors that can be applied. Difficulty to resist is based purely on the relevant stats and paradigm abilities (altering the amount of dice rolled to hit/defend). Different base effects have different influence costs. Adding an improving factor requires adding a mitigating factor, but this can just be increased influence cost. Flavour would be soley provided by the character, the effect is the only thing game rules worry about, so you're allowed to have your Metaphysical death effect be anything from tapping into the opponent's mental field and causing their brain to go haywire to opening a gate into the pits of hell to allow demons to eat their soul.

As an example: for the 'Strength through Sacrifice' ability I mentioned earlier Con Leche would have used the base effect of '5 ability damage' twice, and the 'half a death' ability once, so I would say that could cost 5+5+5(?)=15 influence. When using it he chooses to, on the spot, apply the mitigating factor of 'Blindness for one round'. This gives him one factor point, which he could spend to cause his opponent to be blind for one round as well, but instead chooses to spend as an extra die in his dice pool. He would have also chosen a mitigated effect for his attack, I'm guessing that mitigated factors should be equivalent to 1/3 of the influence cost to attack, so, in this case, he might choose 2 ability damage twice and -2 to Warp until a Healing ability is used..

lesser_minion

2010-05-28, 03:40 PM

if you roll all successes you can add 0.5 times the amount of successes you rolled to your result.

Eeeeeek!

You're making it harder to score a critical hit the more skilled you are there.[hr]

As for powers, while you have the right idea, having effects that can be modified on the fly isn't going to be too helpful - having to work out the rules for an effect in the middle of resolving combat is a bad move, since time spent bookkeeping during combat is a lot more 'expensive' than time spent bookkeeping out of combat.

If we're also going to have powers interact with the environment, then a power should follow some simple rules that allow us to work out those interactions.

That also means that the overall effect needs to be taken into account - we need to know the difference between incinerating someone in a pillar of unholy flame and zapping them with a lightning bolt.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-28, 04:14 PM

Eeeeeek!

You're making it harder to score a critical hit the more skilled you are there.

Ah - true. Any ideas?

As for powers, while you have the right idea, having effects that can be modified on the fly isn't going to be too helpful - having to work out the rules for an effect in the middle of resolving combat is a bad move, since time spent bookkeeping during combat is a lot more 'expensive' than time spent bookkeeping out of combat.

The idea is really that you make commonly used abilities beforehand and have a few pre-set modifiers to change it during combat. You could do the whole making abilities thing during combat, but if we ever make a PDF of this we would say that you should come up with most abilities beforehand.

If we're also going to have powers interact with the environment, then a power should follow some simple rules that allow us to work out those interactions.

Yes, I very much agree. As I said (or at least I think I said) these are just ideas on how to progress, they're not supposed to be the entire system.

That also means that the overall effect needs to be taken into account - we need to know the difference between incinerating someone in a pillar of unholy flame and zapping them with a lightning bolt.

Well, that example would probably just be a case of the base effect allowing different types of energy damage - fire or electricity damage. I think that a few solid rules could make things easy enough in that respect.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-29, 02:55 AM

Just an idea that I had to keep a cap on the versatility of characters - they know base effects, and mitigated effects equal to their transcendence/3 and pairs of factors equal to their transcendence/2

So, if Mr Con Leche (King of Blindness) had 15 transcendence he could have the following effects known:

Base effects: Ability Damage (Might), Ability Damage (Resilience), Kill, Push and Bash

Mitigated effects: Ability Damage (Might), Ability Damage (Resilience), Half Kill, Penetrate and Scar

Factor pairs: Blindness for Blindness, Blindness for +1 attack dice, +1 Influence for +1 attack dice, +1 Influence for Blindness, Blindness for chosen Energy Damage instead of Weapon Damage, +2 Influence for 1 ability damage, +5 Influence for automatic ruining of an unattended non-magical object

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-29, 11:07 AM

Actually, I don't really like the current system I have for how abilities work. Perhaps each ability has 6 ranks, and, at character creation, you distribute 22 points among them. However, you record the amount of ability damage you take separately. For every 3 damage you take to an ability you lower it's rank by one. 0 ranks has different consequences for different abilities:
Might, cannot exert any force, even to move yourself
Resilience, dead
Grace, cannot move
Instinct, forgets how to breathe, see, and do everything usually instinctual
Reason, cannot have purpose or think. If above 0 Instinct is still alive in a vegetable state, otherwise is dead.
Personality, soul has left them and they are mindless with no purpose. Continues standing in the same spot, doing nothing, until dies of starvation or thirst.

An idea to allow commoners with 1 transcendence to be an annoyance to PCs, all creatures have the following base effect always available:

Wound
Offensive
Influence: 0
Ability: Any except Resilience (usually Might)
Effect: The target gains wound points equal to the amount of successes you beat their defence roll by. A creature with 5 wound points becomes blinded or takes 3 damage to resilience. A creature with 10 wound points takes an additional 6 damage to resilience. If this puts them below 3 resilience they are unconscious. A creature with 15 wound points is dead.

Ideas for ability and paradigm stat progression:
You have a number of points invested in Paradigm abilities equal to your transcendence/5.
For every 10 transcendence you may increase your ranks in one ability by one.

This means that their innate abilities are more important at lower levels, but, as they approach godhood, they rely more on their skill and prowess in their chosen field.

Idea for skills: You have a number of skill points equal to your transcendence to invest in whatever skills you choose:
Access: Climb, Swim, Endurance, Jump, Balance, Tumble
Knowledge: Knowledge (Metaphysical, Innate, Disciplinary, Immortal, Nature, Bargain)
Learning: Craft, Spellcraft, Profession, Decipher Script, Appraise, Forgery
Sneakery: Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, Open Lock, Disguise
Social: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Perform, Gather Information
Survival: Ride, Handle Animal, Survival, Spot, Listen, Search

Idea for Attack and Defence pools: attack pool equals: ability + offence + weapon bonus. Defence pool equals: resilience + defence + armour bonus.

lesser_minion

2010-05-29, 02:20 PM

I don't like the idea of ability damage, since it isn't actually clear what it even represents, and since we've established that a character's influence is significantly more important in determining their capabilities than their physical condition.

Also, I'm not sure how far we really need attributes - to a point, I think we might be just trying to shoehorn them in because some people think that a game which doesn't have a set of 'baseline attributes' doesn't count - even though it's actually incredibly hard to come up with a representative set.

It might be more interesting to make them into another aspect of the character - actually more like a character class (or, more accurately, a WFRP-esque career).

Actually, how does that sound?

As an alternative to asking players to pick a minor paradigm (I have to admit, shoehorning characters into a combination of two paradigms still makes me feel uncomfortable), why don't we go with something more like this:

Foci (working title).

A Focus is a peculiarity of a character's magical gift or outlook on magic, which colours almost all of her abilities.

Possible foci (more suggestions would be handy):

-- Grace: A transcendent character with this focus is almost impossible to pin down. In combat, she flows effortlessly around every blow sent her way.

-- Swiftness: A transcendent character with this focus is almost impossibly fast.

-- Affinity: A transcendent character with this focus is a consummate master of reading and understanding people.

-- Clarity: A transcendent character with this focus seems almost impossible to deceive or misdirect, homing unerringly in on the truth.

-- Might: A transcendent character with this focus wields almost impossible physical power.

-- Vision: A transcendent character with this focus has an almost prescient understanding of how best to respond to any given situation.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-29, 02:29 PM

I don't like the idea of ability damage, since it isn't actually clear what it even represents.

Well, I would think it represents injuries, fractures, one's mental field being distorted, one's soul being dragged away... all that good stuff. Really, I think it gives more versatility in effects, but I think Djinn and Gareth should tell us what they imagine on that point.

Stuff people have yet to comment on:
Dice Pools
Influence Cap and Regeneration
Power Factors
Skills

(Some examples of) Stuff that someone needs to do:
Environment Factors
Energy Factors
Thoughts on the Cost of Base Effects, Especially 'Kill'

Just thought I'd say that, the way I imagine it, factor pairs would basically make up for the absence of class features, eg. a pairing of 'not allowed to wear heavy armour' and '+1 dice to defence pools'

lesser_minion

2010-05-29, 04:14 PM

Well, have a look at the Foci system I just suggested as a way to get around characters having to be shoehorned into six attributes that don't necessarily reflect them in the slightest.

Being able to damage a focus makes no sense, because there's no guarantee that a character actually has the focus you want to damage.

I still don't like the idea of letting players choose advantages and disadvantages for their powers - it seems like it would just lead to munchkinery. If we paired them up into traits - or 'trappings', that would mitigate things, but it still wouldn't be great.

Now, the basic workings of powers (taking into account foci):

Each paradigm provides a number of different arts, representing the most common styles of magic/craft practiced by its followers.
Each Art provides a number of generic powers, the specifics of which are determined by a player's choice of focus to use with the power.
Powers come in two main types - Forms, and Techniques.
Forms are generally more significant, but are also costlier. They can be used in two ways, which are mutually exclusive:
Bound. A character may bind a form to its focus. Doing this represents a major change in the character's perception, behaviour, mindset, or physical shape. A character may not bind multiple forms to the same focus. Unbound. A character may invoke a form without binding it to produce a massive effect. The character temporarily loses the focus she used to invoke an unbound power.

I think we might be able to get away without 'influence points' - instead, I'm thinking of having each power require a certain minimum amount of remaining Conviction to use.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-30, 02:06 AM

I think we might be able to get away without 'influence points' - instead, I'm thinking of having each power require a certain minimum amount of remaining Conviction to use.

I'll respond to the rest later, but: wait a sec, didn't we agree that influence is basically the same thing as conviction? I'm confused...

lesser_minion

2010-05-30, 06:44 AM

I'll respond to the rest later, but: wait a sec, didn't we agree that influence is basically the same thing as conviction? I'm confused...

No, Influence was the working title for the points you spent to use powers.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-30, 07:57 AM

No, Influence was the working title for the points you spent to use powers.

So, difference from conviction being...

Anyway, I have come up with a plan of action to create our first draft of combat rules:

Lesser Minion posts a detailed description of his ideas on how things should work, including a couple of examples and an idea for how to set out powers

Me and Minion then work together to find a compromise, using what we like from each other's systems and arguing over what we don't. Gareth and Djinn are welcome to comment and advise, and both have veto power.

Me and Minion write up a the first draft and Gareth and Djinn edit it a bit.

We have our first draft, ready for a complete re-work.

^That sound good to everyone?^

lesser_minion

2010-05-30, 08:49 AM

Well, I suspect that LG and Djinn would both like a bit more than editorial input, and Pirate Monk might like to be involved somewhere... :smallbiggrin:

Aside from that, I don't mind coming up with a rough draft of the rules and chucking them up on Google docs or elsewhere.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-30, 08:58 AM

Well, I suspect that LG and Djinn would both like a bit more than editorial input, and Pirate Monk might like to be involved somewhere... :smallbiggrin:

Oh, oops! Pirate Monk, feel free to contribute. We are, at this time, however, the main contributors on this thread.

Aside from that, I don't mind coming up with a rough draft of the rules and chucking them up on Google docs or elsewhere.

That'd be good, then we can all have a little play with them.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-30, 09:14 AM

Alright.

I'm honestly not liking the stats you've suggested so far. The reason I suggested the offense/defense set I did is because your mental abilities and your belief are far more important than your physical might or your speed. Sorry that Gareth and I are moving slowly, but he's not online much, so that limits our ability to discuss. That, and we're both working stiffs.

I'm honestly still a little lost on where we were with regards to my suggestion. What was the rational behind it being ineffective?

Either way, I don't think this focus stuff is the way we want to go, at least at the moment. I also feel you guys are trying to work on all angles of the system at once, and, as such, we're losing sight of what we WERE working on, which is a system of how powers are used and attacks are resolved.

Personally, I still like the attack vs. active defense system. I also still like the spending Conviction to mitigate or negate attacks, as I imagine hitting will be somewhat common. I like the idea of having to use Paradigm Powers that target your opponent's weaknesses, which a multiple-defense system would have. I don't think 6 attack stats and 6 defense stats would be confusing, as I can think of at least 5 ways to easily represent them on a character sheet. I'm also not sure where the conversation went from there.

In short, you're getting away from us in a truly incredible way. Or so I feel. I'm sorry I'm not around to comment that often, but life is what it is.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-30, 09:58 AM

I'm honestly not liking the stats you've suggested so far. The reason I suggested the offense/defense set I did is because your mental abilities and your belief are far more important than your physical might or your speed.

But, I thought that was what I was using all along! I had a bit of Might, Resilience, etc. in there, but the idea was that we still primarily used the defence/offence powers. I think that it's good to have a bit of inherent power, but I think that that would get less important as players progress. If I didn't make that clear, I'm sorry. If I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, please tell me.

I'm honestly still a little lost on where we were with regards to my suggestion. What was the rational behind it being ineffective?

I don't really know. Anyway, I'm still using it, if that wasn't clear.

Either way, I don't think this focus stuff is the way we want to go, at least at the moment.

I agree, but it might be interesting to see what, exactly, minion envisions.

I also feel you guys are trying to work on all angles of the system at once, and, as such, we're losing sight of what we WERE working on, which is a system of how powers are used and attacks are resolved.

The problem is that, in a roleplaying game, so much interlinks that it is hard to just focus on one part at a time, because it will influence and be influenced by so many other parts of the game.

Personally, I still like the attack vs. active defense system.

Me too, I think we're using that.

I also still like the spending Conviction to mitigate or negate attacks, as I imagine hitting will be somewhat common.

Oh. I thought what you were suggesting was that conviction was spent to increase defences. Personally, I like that idea, but come up with mechanics for yours and I'll be happy to follow it.

I like the idea of having to use Paradigm Powers that target your opponent's weaknesses, which a multiple-defense system would have. I don't think 6 attack stats and 6 defense stats would be confusing, as I can think of at least 5 ways to easily represent them on a character sheet.

I support all those ideas.

I'm also not sure where the conversation went from there.

Well, I just put forward some ideas that I had been coming up with, and minion briefly described some of his.

In short, you're getting away from us in a truly incredible way. Or so I feel. I'm sorry I'm not around to comment that often, but life is what it is.

I think you're overreacting a little on that front. I, at least, am trying to keep to what you suggested and incorporate it into all of my ideas. If I am failing to do that, sorry, but you aren't always exactly clear on what direction you want us to take. I am aware that this is your project at heart, and I don't want to do anything to take that away from you.

lesser_minion

2010-05-30, 10:05 AM

The entire point behind foci was to give players an easy way to express peculiarities of their character without having to shoehorn them into some artificial intelligence/wisdom/charisma setup. They don't assume that they come from something physical about a character.

Might isn't about muscles. It's about picking up the USS Nimitz and chucking it into orbit.

Likewise, Grace. Nothing to do with 'fitness'. It's about never being where someone expects you to be.

As for Swiftness? That's for the characters who don't believe in special relativity.

The idea here is that looking at a character's foci should give you a fair idea of roughly what they do. It's quick, it's easy to understand, and it's flexible.[hr]

Regarding active defence: I have no problem with active defence. What I have a problem with is the use of indirectly-relevant statistics as a key component of resolution.

While the explanation and the focus on belief is important, it isn't so much a primary goal - which, if I recall, was to come up with an interesting magic system with an emphasis on being awesome.

To a point, one of the things players want to know is "what can I do?" Not "how can I do things?".

As far as possible, we need to write the rules in such a way that they allow the player to answer the first question, instead of making them 'skrlltch' their character into some bizarre combination of paradigms.

In the end, asking players to put points into 'Unity' to defend against raging torrents of ghostly-white flame rising from the earth isn't really helpful - why couldn't I defend against that by understanding the principles behind it? By chucking some power of my own against it in the hope of neutralising it?

An enormous swathe of any given character is either completely independent of paradigms, or cuts across them.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-30, 10:09 AM

Alright...see how confused I was? I thought you guys had gone off on some extreme tangents. My bad. :smallredface:

I'm alright with those stats as a base. I thought you had completely replaced my suggestion and were running with the replacement before discussing it.

I'll take a closer look later today, and make some comments. :smallbiggrin:

lesser_minion

2010-05-30, 10:46 AM

To clarify my earlier post, the main thing I want to get out of this is a system where, as far as possible, nothing feels - or becomes - artificial.

What a character can do with a specific paradigm shouldn't ever feel arbitrary - this is what I have against building up a character by combining two or more paradigms.

A paradigm is a particular approach to magic - it isn't the be-all and end-all of a character. And while in some cases it does make sense to describe an approach to magic as a blend of two different paradigms, it isn't really safe, in my opinion, to assume that that's always the case.

Metaphysics is the only one that really combines well with any other paradigm, and then it's because it could be thought of as a separate axis describing how academic your approach is.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-05-30, 12:48 PM

lesser_minion

2010-05-30, 01:09 PM

Agreed. I don't see how my approach "combines" paradigms. I do, however, think each Paradigm has a set of core principles, that are often shared across Paradigms. Every character would have points in all those suggested attacks and defenses, to define themselves and their beliefs. Certain Paradigms just might favor one over the other.

As far as defences are concerned, I think it's far simpler to go with something like this:

Each art is its own defence (even if you're using different paradigms for the art) Additionally, each art has some basic qualities, indicating defences that are unlikely to work against it. Foci each provide a bonus to defence, which doesn't apply to specific keywords. Finally, arts that provide a counter specify that they don't work against particular qualities.

One important thing here is that each defence is explicit about what kinds of attack it won't stop.

I think this is a little more useful in general, and also easier to rationalise - "you can't parry the raging torrent of fire because it's coming from all around you" vs. "the book says you have to dodge the raging torrent of fire".

I still think that the focus rules should be fitted in somewhere, even if under a different name.

Even alongside a reduced group of conventional 'common' stats, I think they go a long way towards making characters who are distinctive, don't feel like they've been squished into the game, and also fit common tropes.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-05-31, 03:36 AM

Each art is its own defence (even if you're using different paradigms for the art) Additionally, each art has some basic qualities, indicating defences that are unlikely to work against it. Foci each provide a bonus to defence, which doesn't apply to specific keywords. Finally, arts that provide a counter specify that they don't work against particular qualities.

So, like: Metaphysical attacks are countered by Defiance. Mit Milch brews up her Metaphysical death attack with the base effect of death, the mitigated effect of Resilience damage, and the factors of -1 dice pool, +1 influence, variable energy effect and blindness for one round. She since she chose metaphysical and energy effects it is automatically but in the 'Energy Warp' effect category. These effects cannot be parried, are subject to resistances and vulnerabilities, are vulnerable to anti-magic effects and are extra-hard to dodge.

If that's the right idea, some ideas for effect categories:
Metaphysical, Energy: 'Energy Warp'
Metaphysical, Death: 'Life Inversion'
Nature, Energy: 'Elemental Blast'
Immortal, Death: 'Doom'

lesser_minion

2010-05-31, 06:00 AM

Well, I wanted the categories to be a little more specific than that.

The reason each art would be its own defence is because familiarity with what your opponent is trying to do is kind of handy.

If you had a counter or a focus called Defiance, it would probably go up against an 'inevitable' effect.

Definitions I'm using, because this is starting to confuse me as well:

Art: A particular subset of the powers available to a certain paradigm - e.g. Engineering for the metaphysicists Counter: A particular power which provides a defence against other powers. These act as stances, so having many readied defences can compromise your attack Focus: A particular aspect of your character's personality or beliefs that is expressed in all - or most - of the feats you perform.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-02, 02:05 AM

O.K, let's get going. Lesser Minion, could you put up a detailed example of your ideas for the system so we can progress?

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 07:58 AM

Hmm... How about we go back to the earlier plan - I get to work on a rough draft of how I think everything should work, then everyone works together on improving it.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-02, 09:12 AM

Hmm... How about we go back to the earlier plan - I get to work on a rough draft of how I think everything should work, then everyone works together on improving it.

Sounds good. A few ideas on the practicalities:

Use only 6-sided dice. Makes for easier rolling without having to scrabble around for the right die.

Attributes go up to 6, abilities (the offensive and defensive stuff) go up to 12, and never does anything give more than 9 bonus dice. That means that all the dice you need for this system fit in a neat 3 by 3 by 3 cube.

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 09:23 AM

Dice are still something I'd like a little more debate on, actually.

For now, I'm going to write everything assuming d10 roll-and-lookup, since in my experience, it's very easy to convert to and from dice pools.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-06-02, 11:34 AM

Feel free to do so, Lesser Minion. Gareth and I were talking today about possibilities, and we're both thinking of running a few numbers on imaginary dice pools, and seeing how that works out for us. Just as a heads up. :smallbiggrin:

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 11:46 AM

Hmm... OK. I'll see what I can do then.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-02, 02:52 PM

I just like d6s for two reasons:

One, they are familiar to almost everybody. Very few people will not have encountered a 6-sided die, and so they are less threatening than the polyhedrons found in most RPGs.

Two, they are cube-shaped, and so are much more efficient when it comes to space. Mainly just a bit of OCD shining through there, but I do think there is something satisfying about having every die you need for a game in a neat 3 by 3 by 3 cube.

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 02:55 PM

Well, 2d6 is always workable as well.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-06-02, 02:58 PM

One, they are familiar to almost everybody. Very few people will not have encountered a 6-sided die, and so they are less threatening than the polyhedrons found in most RPGs.

A good reason. However, d10s are also very easy to come by, thanks to White Wolf. d6 wins this, but not by much.

Two, they are cube-shaped, and so are much more efficient when it comes to space. Mainly just a bit of OCD shining through there, but I do think there is something satisfying about having every die you need for a game in a neat 3 by 3 by 3 cube.

I think this is just you. I know that I personally find a handful of d10s roll better than a handful of d6s, so I have to give this one to the d10. In short, it's really up in the air.

PirateMonk

2010-06-02, 04:05 PM

Personally, I like the more exotic dice, but for practical reasons we should probably go with a single type, probably d6.

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 04:16 PM

Well, I guess I'll use d10-and-lookup for the draft, as I suggested before.

Although I personally like d8s. Platonic solids look nicer.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-02, 04:30 PM

Well, 2d6 is always workable as well.

But what's the point of that, if we're using dice pools? It would get incredibly confusing...

Anyway, it seems like Pirate Monk and I vote for 6 sides, djinn is split between the two and Minion likes d10. Seems like d6 is winning, but only just. I like the idea though, because 6 seems like a running theme in this whole project.

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 04:32 PM

Well, we actually seem to have some agreement that the draft will use d10 roll-and-lookup, and we can switch to a dice pool later if necessary.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-06-02, 04:42 PM

Well, we actually seem to have some agreement that the draft will use d10 roll-and-lookup, and we can switch to a dice pool later if necessary.

Um...what? Gareth and I are both gunning straight for dice pool at the moment...

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 04:51 PM

Sorry, I misread your earlier post.

OK, fine. d6 dice pool it is for now (5-6 to succeed, as with all other d6 dice pools).

PirateMonk

2010-06-02, 06:02 PM

Anyone feel like doing a detailed probability analysis of the curves found by different die types? :smalltongue: Or has the Internet already provided this?

Lord_Gareth

2010-06-02, 06:04 PM

Well, it depends. D10 systems usually use explosive die or tens counting twice. D6es, on the other hand, rarely explode, if ever. So, ah, analysis would be appreciated, in other words.

lesser_minion

2010-06-02, 08:22 PM

Dice pools are a lot easier when it's a straight binomial distribution - the die type is irrelevant to that.

If you start using explosions or double-counting tens, then things get a bit harder.

d6s are the best choice there, I guess.

PirateMonk

2010-06-02, 08:38 PM

Okay, quick and dirty dice pool analysis up to five dice without explosion. It gets too complicated beyond that, so hopefully the pattern will become evident by then. The type of die is bold, the numbers needed for success are in parentheses.

4 (4)- 1 die: 1/4 chance of one success.
2 dice: 3/8 chance of one success, 1/16 chance of two successes.
3 dice: 27/64 chance of one success, 9/64 chance of two successes, 1/64 chance of three successes.
4 dice: 27/64 chance of one success, 27/128 chance of two successes, 3/64 chance of three successes, 1/256 chance of four successes.
5 dice: 405/1024 chance of one success, 135/512 chance of two successes, 45/512 chance of three successes, 15/1024 chance of four successes, 1/1024 chance of five successes.

6 (5,6)- 1 die: 1/3 chance of one success.
2 dice: 4/9 chance of one success, 1/9 chance of two successes.
3 dice: 4/9 chance of one success, 2/9 chance of two successes, 1/27 chance of three successes.
4 dice: 32/81 chance of one success, 8/27 chance of two successes, 8/81 chance of three successes, 1/81 chance of four successes.
5 dice: 80/243 chance of one success, 80/243 chance of two successes, 40/243 chance of three successes, 10/243 chance of four successes, 1/243 chance of five successes.

To be continued when I have more time. If you find an error, please point it out.

Or not.

lesser_minion

2010-06-03, 06:07 AM

PirateMonk: it's known as the 'binomial distribution', and the pattern isn't something you'd necessarily notice.

In essence, we just find the probability of getting exactly (as an example) four successes and three failures, then multiply that by the number of ways it can happen.

The second bit is what makes it weird, but for small numbers, you can use Pascal's Triangle. The actual formula is:

n C r = (n!)/(r!)(n-r)!

However.

[hr]

The probability of getting r successes out of n dice where each die has a probability of succeeding of p is:

P(R = r) = (nCr) * pr * (1 - p)(n-r)

nCr is already a button on most scientific calculators

For checks where you only need a single success to pass, this collapses completely into:

P(R > 0) = (1 - p)n

In essence, it's quite hard to do on paper (I suspect that the reason White Wolf use dice pools so much is explicitly because of this). However, it's also fairly easy to work it out on an Excel spreadsheet.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-03, 08:30 AM

However, it's also fairly easy to work it out on an Excel spreadsheet.

I'm having trouble, being only average in my computer and math literacy. Could you put out the formulas in Excel layout?

lesser_minion

2010-06-03, 08:43 AM

OK, OpenOffice spreadsheet. In any event, there's a function that does it for you so you don't even have to remember the formula - search the help file for 'binomial'.

In OpenOffice:

Probability of a specific number of successes:

=BINOMDIST(X;dice_pool;success_probability;option)

You need the probability of any given die succeeding.

If option is zero, then you get the probability of getting exactly X successes.

If option is one, then you get the probability of getting X successes or fewer.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-03, 09:29 AM

So, if you want to have something averagely tricky, something that someone with an average score in that attribute (3) and one bonus dice from the skill that they're using would have half a chance of doing, it would need two successes.

Presuming that we're agreeing that the largest dice pool possible is 27, truly epic feats, where you could have the maximum of every type of bonus and still have only a half chance of success, would require 9 successes.

Experts in their field should have 7 dice in their pool of expertise, as that means they can do 'tricky' tasks 7 times out of 10, and 'difficult' (three successes) tasks 4 times out of ten.

No tasks should require more than 9 successes.

Edit: 1 success is easy. 2 successes is tricky. 3 successes is difficult. 4 successes is amazing. 5 successes is what would, for most people, be actually impossible. 6 or 7 successes is the kind of thing you hear about in the news. 8 and 9 successes is getting into the truly epic.

lesser_minion

2010-06-03, 09:36 AM

Most people just look at the expectation - for example, a character with 27 dice expects nine successes.

White Wolf also did pretty much the same thing - in nWoD, an exceptional success means you've managed a performance comparable to an absolute master of whatever you were doing in absolutely perfect conditions.

I'm probably going to try to avoid using more than 24 dice. Having to roll giant numbers of dice is basically the main place where dice pools fall apart.

Also, the convention in dice pool systems is to skew things a little against success - for d6s, 5-6 to succeed is the convention.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-03, 09:45 AM

Also, the convention in dice pool systems is to skew things a little against success - for d6s, 5-6 to succeed is the convention.

Yes, there was an error in my calculations the first time round. I've edited my post to be correct. (If you're wondering what the error was it was that I put 0.2 in the 'probability of success per die' field instead of 0.3r)

lesser_minion

2010-06-03, 10:11 AM

Yes, there was an error in my calculations the first time round. I've edited my post to be correct. (If you're wondering what the error was it was that I put 0.2 in the 'probability of success per die' field instead of 0.3r)

You should have 1/3 in the success_probability field - it's just the probability of success on one die, not per die.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-03, 10:17 AM

You should have 1/3 in the success_probability field - it's just the probability of success on one die, not per die.

Yes, that's what I meant. By 0.3r I meant 0.3 recurring, 1/3.

However, I find it interesting that, as soon as maths becomes involved, this thread explodes with activity. I suggest that each new topic brought up should have a suitable little mathematical tid-bit to accompany it and encourage response.

TheLonelyScribe

2010-06-08, 01:28 PM

I think this thread is in dire need of bumpage.

Minion, are you nearly finished with that write-up you promised?

lesser_minion

2010-06-08, 01:52 PM

I'm working on it. There are a few different things I need to take into account, so it will take a while.

Lord_Gareth

2010-06-08, 04:19 PM

Still paying attention here - just don't have a lot to contribute as to this aspect of game design theory.

lesser_minion

2010-06-08, 09:02 PM

I'm still not happy with the choice of mechanic we're using -- binomial distributions aren't hard per se, but they are still an absolute PITA to work with in comparison to the alternatives.

I think the biggest issue here is really going to be getting the right sort of 'feel' from the game.

When this was just going to be a drop-in magic system, things generally looked a bit darker and grittier, which is something we're drifting away from quite a bit.

I wouldn't mind getting some idea of how far we want to go with that move.

EDIT: For now, I'm going to treat paradigms more like templates -- while paradigm combinations might sound interesting, they really seem like more trouble than they're worth to me.

I've thought out some different disciplines metaphysics may encompass:

Theory: The mathematics and other core understandings needed to learn this form of magic.
Psychometry: Measuring magic, and using magic to measure things.
Machinery: Designing and working with arcanotech.
Alchemy: Working with chemicals and herbs.
Biology: The understanding of life and living beings
Thaumaturgy: Theoretical work

Metaphysical effects are all either Incantations or Devices -- they don't have access to Forms or Techniques at all.

Also, as a simple guide:

Forms: Collections of abilities (aspects). A character can only assume one form, but doesn't have to take on every aspect of that form.
Techniques: Single abilities which directly augment something a character does.
Incantations: Actual 'spells'. Take a while to perform.
Devices: Things a character creates or prepares in advance, and which grant a collection of abilities.

All of these will be customisable, once we get to that stage.