The Better D&D

[Xechon]

I am trying to recreate the base system of D&D, piece by piece, to fix some of the many problems the d20 system has. Some of my goals are: add realism; make hp system work better; get rid of levels and instead use an XP buy system for classes to add more versatility; balance everyone, including monsters and races, to an XP average (a modification of the monster classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142724)); add many different systems for magic, as alternates to the original "pick a spell, any spell"; and balance the system to better accommodate for medieval vs. medieval magic vs. technology, among many other things. I also will take into account anything you want to be fixed as I go. However, this is a very daunting task for just one person, and I would like to request help from the community to make this all work. Here is my first step in the creation:

Ability Scores:

Physical Abilities:

Strength- Upper-body, Core, Lower-body
Dexterity- Stealth, Accuracy, Skill
Constitution- Stamina, Immunity, Health
Agility- Speed, Balance, Reflexes

Mental Abilities:

Intelligence- Spatial, Linguistic, Logical
Charisma- Liked, Feared, Respected
Acumen- Will, Judgement, Intuition
Mentality- Sanity, Morale, Spirituality

Ability Score range: ?-?? each
Size modifiers: Size modifiers will be specified in the action that is used, but will not change the ability score. This makes larger creature still stronger, but keeps the same range of ability scores. You may be wondering, if you know the other rule “there is no hp, only ability scores get damaged” how it can be balanced, because that would mean that a dragon can be killed just as easily as a human fighter. Well, there will be balance through a size bonus to damage reduction.
Roll method: Roll ?d? for each main ability score, then apply them IN ORDER.
Subcategories: These are the actual “ability scores” that get used, the others just group them into general categories. The score these subcategories have is the overall ability score split among the subcategories as the player wants, during character creation.
Subcategory range: ?-?? each
Modifiers: ½ rounded up = 0, every 1 up is +1, every 1 down is -1

I have a lot of ideas that lead up to each one that I try to make, so if I forget to explain something along the way or am vague, please ask me so I can clarify it for everyone else too. I love criticism, ideas, and alternate mechanics, so if you have any of these, please share!

[erikun]

Alright then, let's start with the basics.

Add Realism
What do you mean by "realism"? What exactly are you looking for? What parts of the current system are unrealistic? What parts of reality to you want to mimic in your system? What are you willing to give up in your system to achieve the desired realism?

Make HP System Work Better
What doesn't work in the current HP system? What does work? What do you want HP to model? What do you want it to achieve?

Balance Everyone
Around what point? You'll want some idea of where you want things balanced before you can begin balancing things. Also note that if you are using an XP-point-buy system, then "balance everyone" really doesn't make that much sense.

Balance the system to better accommodate for medieval vs. medieval magic vs. technology
This phrase doesn't make much sense with traditional D&D, much less after ditching the whole D&D system. What does this mean? That medieval weaponry should be equal to fantasy magic and modern technology? Doesn't that already violate the goal or realism, above?

Ability Scores
I can't help but think this is a rather bad place to start fixing things. Not only does it assume a standard D&D approach to ability scores (3-18, roll 3d6) but you have no way to determine which abilities will be relevant without having the base system functioning. You can always simplify or condense abilities once you know which ones you'll need to use.

Case in point, is your Balance ability score going to be judged as frequently or as heavily as your Upper Body score? What exactly would your Judgement ability score apply to?

Size Modifiers
Could work out, I suppose, although the rules are understandably vague at this point. Get combat and interactions working between two people of the same size before you start determining what size modifiers, if you use them at all, will do with the system.

Roll Method
Please, please do not take this the wrong way, but the one thing you have distinctly defined in your system has been around for ~30 years, and is one of the most frequently ignored rules to the D&D system. Don't hold your system to the standard of everyone using 3d6-in-order stat generation.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

GURPS Dungeon Fantasy beat you to it.

[erikun]

I was going to mention that the proposed system did remind me of GURPS, but thought it might not be very productive.

[YouLostMe]

D&D is several legacies in the making. If you're trying to reconstruct D&D from the ground up, you want to use bases like DCs, and you'll probably want the same ability scores (or the same number) that D&D has been using from 1st to 4th edition (that's extrapolation, I don't actually know the ability scores from 1e).

Let me critique you on a few things off the bat:

8 ability scores is a lot. 6 is kind of pushing it, in fact, as it leads to at least 1 or 2 dump stats with stat optimization. If you're redesigning D&D, Occam's Razor should be basically your soulmate. 6 or fewer--4 is probably the best.
Why bother with modifiers? If you have a strength score of 4, you add 4 to your rolls. No extra work needed.
With this X Edition of D&D that you're creating, the most important part is not stats but contributions. You need a leveling system and DCs for each level of capability, and THEN you need to build the bonuses that tie in to it.

[Xechon]

I'm sorry, I should really stop working on a post right after school. Let me reiterate, then I'll answer your questions.
1.) This is NOT D&D. This will be a completely different system using the d20 and 3.5 D&D core books as examples, not a base.
2.) HP will not exist, and instead all damage will be ability damage. This damage will heal itself over time.
3.) XP will still be collected, but there will not be classes and levels. The XP will instead be spent on "class features", and these features must be balanced carefully as to not allow metagaming, and to make sure that following a chain of related features will not make them underpowered compared to another chain. Also, a better made character will obviously be better than one made on a whim, but I want a buffer on both the top and the bottom of this system- you don't want players too far lost or too far ahead.
4.) I will probably be using many systems for magic, including the original D&D style and a system I've tweaked from spell seeds, it's kinda like True Sorcery. I like the idea that there is many ways to obtain this power, but all have limitations and all are rare.
5.) Races and monsters will both run on a system that is a tweaked form of moster classes, made to run on the system that has no classes. This means the creature you pick or make (using a strict system for creating level 0 creatures and features to go along with them) will give you more features that you can buy with XP. "class" features will also have a strict creation system to give player and the GM maximum customizability, which may or may not be a valid word.
6.) Ability scores will fluctuate often, so that if you dont upkeep an ability it will start to weaken, and if you train one constantly then it will increase. Obviously, you can't train your immune system, or work all your strength at the same time (don't quote me on the second one, but I've never heard of an exercise that trains everything), so you will upkeep the entire category, and any points you gain can be split among the categories. That brings up losing points that go into subcategories. Take off from the highest category first, and in descending order for each after until it's brought back to the top. If two are the same, flip a coin or let the player choose.
7.) Skills will be ranked by ability subcategory modifier (or ability subcategory, if I take out modifiers and just bump up DC's) plus talent in skill, which is determined by it's level. When a character completes a certain amount of challenging tasks involving that skill, based on level, the skill "level" will increase, and so it's talent modifier.
8.) Races will include modifiers to ability scores as normal, not subcategories, except that they will not simply add or subtract from the score, they add or subtract from the cap.

I probably forgot some things, and I will post them later if I remember. I hope this clears some things up, though.

Now for questions not answered in the above:



What do you mean by "realism"? What exactly are you looking for? What parts of the current system are unrealistic? What parts of reality to you want to mimic in your system? What are you willing to give up in your system to achieve the desired realism?

When I say realism, I mean actual realism, mostly equations that can explain real life. I have a feeling most of these will be used in creation more than in the actual game, but they should still work well.

The parts of the system that need the most work are damage values, healing, item costs and values, and weather as a close fourth. Some examples are: Items that are many times bigger than you will crush you when they land on you, not exactly deal "1d6 damage for each 10 feet it falls, blah blah blah"; Healing completely from critical wounds in a couple of days; Items being worth 1/3 less when you sell them than when others do; And rain being able to hurt you from prolonged exposure, among many other things.

I want to have every aspect of realism possible in the game, and probably will create this first, a life simulator essentially, then slowly add magic, monsters, and mayhem while constantly play-testing to make sure it all still works. This does still require that I create the fantasy as well as the realism, so that I'm not just improvising the fantasy and ruining it.

I don't know what I would be willing to give up, I'll make that decision if/when it comes.


Around what point? You'll want some idea of where you want things balanced before you can begin balancing things. Also note that if you are using an XP-point-buy system, then "balance everyone" really doesn't make that much sense.

I don't know yet what point I'm going to use as the standard, probably "choice of feat" or some other standard ability.


This phrase doesn't make much sense with traditional D&D, much less after ditching the whole D&D system. What does this mean? That medieval weaponry should be equal to fantasy magic and modern technology? Doesn't that already violate the goal or realism, above?

It does not mean they should be equal, no. It means they should all be able to work well in the same core system. A DM who want to run a medieval fantasy without magic can just make up an excuse (or better, a quest) that gets rid of magic, and everything will continue as usual. Characters with magic features will gain the lost XP back over time, and everyone is happy. Likewise, if the characters then hop in a blue box that is bigger on the inside and find themselves in the future, the stats and rules for the new technology shouldn't be halfhazardly thrown together like in 3.5, but d20 modern just throws medieval items out the window comparatively.


I can't help but think this is a rather bad place to start fixing things. Not only does it assume a standard D&D approach to ability scores (3-18, roll 3d6) but you have no way to determine which abilities will be relevant without having the base system functioning. You can always simplify or condense abilities once you know which ones you'll need to use.

Case in point, is your Balance ability score going to be judged as frequently or as heavily as your Upper Body score? What exactly would your Judgement ability score apply to?

Could be the worst place to start, but I figured that if I was going to do this, might as well start at the beginning.

It uses a different form of the D&D ability score system, but it is, indeed, quite similar. However, I can't think of a different way to approach this, so it's what I'm sticking with for now.

I will almost definitely have to go back and tweak many things, but this is a just a base I have thought of that describes more than D&D does. Also, I never said any of this was perfect, and I'm completely open to suggestions.

Balance may just be used as much as everything else, with the extended list of combat maneuvers I am making. Judgment acts like insight and appraise in my mind.


Please, please do not take this the wrong way, but the one thing you have distinctly defined in your system has been around for ~30 years, and is one of the most frequently ignored rules to the D&D system. Don't hold your system to the standard of everyone using 3d6-in-order stat generation.

Like I said above, I don't know of any other way to approach the general abilities of a character, but if you have any suggestions, I am dying to hear.



8 ability scores is a lot. 6 is kind of pushing it, in fact, as it leads to at least 1 or 2 dump stats with stat optimization. If you're redesigning D&D, Occam's Razor should be basically your soulmate. 6 or fewer--4 is probably the best.

I feel these more accurately cover everything a character's abilities are. The rolling will be different, so there might still be just 1 or 2 dump stats, but with the subcategories, you can be good at some aspects of each stat, even if it is a dumped one.

I despise simplicity for the sake of simplicity, but also do not even consider complexity for complexity's sake. I like to make everything as complex as needs be to encompass everything, but not add anything that is completely unnecessary. So unless a better reason is presented, I think I'll be keeping the 8, or even more if people think of more abilities.


Why bother with modifiers? If you have a strength score of 4, you add 4 to your rolls. No extra work needed.

I was adding modifiers because I thought they were necessary for balance, or else everyone would be too overpowered. But then I realized I can just increase DCs. Good idea, thanks.


With this X Edition of D&D that you're creating, the most important part is not stats but contributions. You need a leveling system and DCs for each level of capability, and THEN you need to build the bonuses that tie in to it.

I honestly feel I should start at the very core, then work my way out. I have many ideas that pertain to everything else already brewing, but I want to start, add, then come back and modify if necessary. I am not opposed to tweaking.


Okay, so now that we have a few things iron out, I shall actually ask my question from last time, instead of implying it. What should my range of ability scores be, what should my rolling method by, and what should be the maximum for subcategory scores?

Also, I have long been using "My new D&D" as a bad explanation of the system, and If anyone can think of a name for me to use for it, please speak up.

Thank you all for helping me with this, and sorry for that first post. I will eventually get everything out of my head and sorted on a wiki, so that kind of post wont happen again. Also, when I get it all filled out, I will give the best contributors access to edit my wiki and make suggestions there, too, on ideas that I might forget to bring up here. Once it is finished, it will be open to everyone that might want to use it.

[erikun]

Oh my.

Um, I think you may have your work cut out for you. I mean, I have some brief ideas about how to put together an actual, realistic RPG, but it would take quite a bit of time to check on actual physical properities, human potential limits, and ensuring that the game values fit and created predictable results.

My first question is: How do you wish for combat (or whatever conflict is common) to resolve itself? Is it going to be swing sword-penetrate armor-die bleeding? (by far the most common 'realistic' result) Would you rather use some sort of a parrying system, where fighters exchange blows until one gets through? Is it more of a D&D approach, where fighters trade hits until one falls down?

What should characters be doing in a typical session? Will the focus be on fighting? On conflict with other characters? On travelling and exploring a dungeon?

EDIT
Notes on a few more points.

You don't need an "abilities get better with training" if you using an XP system. The whole point of XP is to represent improvement through experience. One or the other would be better, and make the most sense.

Having some abilities degrade (or increase slower) because you are working on others does not make sense. If I lift weights for an hour and go read a book, my weight-lifting exercise does not spontaneously become half as effective. This is especially true as you cannot reasonably spend all your time working on a single attribute - you will burn yourself out, not to mention your body. People do not lift weights for 8 hours a day; not even bodybuilders.

And what you'll find when you realize that is players saying they'll simply maintain their current stats while working on others, making the entire system pointless (besides hurting new players). You will likely need to implement some kind of awkward Stress mechanic to enforce a relaxation quota during character downtime... which would likely just become an even bigger hassle to deal with.

Creating monster "classes" that are explicitly better than what you can get by spending XP is completely counterintuitive. The idea of a point-buy is to determine the relative "level" or challange based on the XP spent. It goes counter to this to create options which are considerably better than others, all for the same XP value. (This ignores the inherent difficulty in crafting challanges based on XP values, too.)

[Mando Knight]

2.) HP will not exist, and instead all damage will be ability damage.

You wanted added realism? This works directly counter to that. It's even more of an abstraction than HP. A realistic damage system would involve hit locations, chances for critical hits that make you bleed out in mere minutes without proper care, and so forth such that it would make Battletech look like a fast-flowing game.

[Prime32]

The parts of the system that need the most work are damage values, healing, item costs and values, and weather as a close fourth. Some examples are: Items that are many times bigger than you will crush you when they land on you, not exactly deal "1d6 damage for each 10 feet it falls, blah blah blah";This hurts realism. If I make a character with a magical forcefield and skin harder than diamond, he should not die by falling off a roof. Likewise, something falling quickly will do more damage IRL than something falling slowly.


Items being worth 1/3 less when you sell them than when others do; And rain being able to hurt you from prolonged exposure, among many other things.I have no idea what you're talking about. :smallconfused:

[Xechon]

My first question is: How do you wish for combat (or whatever conflict is common) to resolve itself? Is it going to be swing sword-penetrate armor-die bleeding? (by far the most common 'realistic' result) Would you rather use some sort of a parrying system, where fighters exchange blows until one gets through? Is it more of a D&D approach, where fighters trade hits until one falls down?

I've actually thought quite a but about this question. My final conclusion is your PCs are more powerful than other people, they're special, and you dont want them to die. However, without the looming threat of death, combat is not fun. Therefore, the epic drawn-out battles between two combatants waiting for the other's defenses to fail, and then the massacres of many lower-"level" monsters, each not posing much of a threat, but with the multitudes they might get through your defenses and strike you down; those types of battles. So number one and two in your paragraph.


What should characters be doing in a typical session? Will the focus be on fighting? On conflict with other characters? On travelling and exploring a dungeon?

The system will be focused around skills, events, adventure, and will encourage role playing and pivotal decisions that each character has to make, but will probably contain just as big of a combat factor, because I know how much some people love their "kick-down-door" quests. Also, there will be as complete rules on traveling and dungeon crawling as I can think of. However, I might not want to spell everything out, because a good GM is one who awards characters for creativity.


You don't need an "abilities get better with training" if you using an XP system. The whole point of XP is to represent improvement through experience. One or the other would be better, and make the most sense.

Having some abilities degrade (or increase slower) because you are working on others does not make sense. If I lift weights for an hour and go read a book, my weight-lifting exercise does not spontaneously become half as effective. This is especially true as you cannot reasonably spend all your time working on a single attribute - you will burn yourself out, not to mention your body. People do not lift weights for 8 hours a day; not even bodybuilders.

And what you'll find when you realize that is players saying they'll simply maintain their current stats while working on others, making the entire system pointless (besides hurting new players). You will likely need to implement some kind of awkward Stress mechanic to enforce a relaxation quota during character downtime... which would likely just become an even bigger hassle to deal with.

Well, in my mind, everything would be so slow it would balance, and you could upkeep all of your abilities, or train one and let one fall, et cetera, but I do see the unnessisarity of this now, and I'll probably just let it go and add some ability score up features, mabye dependent on race, and some minor permanent ability score loss here and there. Or I can start them off weak and let them get thirds features to improve their ability scores to the desired one, that'll probably work better. I'll leave the fluctuating ability scores alone for now.


Creating monster "classes" that are explicitly better than what you can get by spending XP is completely counterintuitive. The idea of a point-buy is to determine the relative "level" or challange based on the XP spent. It goes counter to this to create options which are considerably better than others, all for the same XP value. (This ignores the inherent difficulty in crafting challanges based on XP values, too.)

??? I sense some misunderstanding here. The level 0 monster classes are pretty much, here are your ability score cap changes, and a couple quirks of your race. They are in no means more powerful than features, but they will give each character a few more options of features to spend XP on. If the misunderstanding was because of the CR-like feature I mentioned, it would be totally based on total XP spent. It is true, the DM will have to wing encounter "level" a bit, but that should make it all he more fun. And there will be features better than others, but those will simply cost more XP, so every thing should be golden.


Originally Posted by Xechon
2.) HP will not exist, and instead all damage will be ability damage.
You wanted added realism? This works directly counter to that. It's even more of an abstraction than HP. A realistic damage system would involve hit locations, chances for critical hits that make you bleed out in mere minutes without proper care, and so forth such that it would make Battletech look like a fast-flowing game.


I believe it is more realistic than HP because it does not scale like HP and takes into effect what is happening to you each time you get hurt, instead of fighting like you haven't been touched until you fall unconscious. I want to make a location call system, but then everyone would always just say "I go for the head" and be done with it. If you find a way to work this, please share. Criticals in this system will be truly devestating, often instant kills at same-ish XP level, and allowing for common humans to sometimes land a slightly effective blow, a lucky shot, on as much as a full grown dragon.


I know I have a ton of work ahead if I want to get this done, but as long as I can get support, I am determined to stick with it until the end. I am going to try and get my wiki ready to share, but it might take a while and I'm trying to work on it under limited conditions (my hard drive gave out, so I have to get my families computers when theyre free and internet's working) but keep the ideas and criticism flowing, I can keep up on that with my iPod. I will share the wiki when it's ready.

What was determined:
1.) ability score have no modifier, they apply directly, bump up DCs.
2.) combat will be epic, drawn-out duels and slaughterhouses.
3.) get rid of fluctuing ability scores, add a feature that increases them, start characters off low on ability scores.

[erikun]

I've actually thought quite a but about this question. My final conclusion is your PCs are more powerful than other people, they're special, and you dont want them to die. However, without the looming threat of death, combat is not fun. Therefore, the epic drawn-out battles between two combatants waiting for the other's defenses to fail, and then the massacres of many lower-"level" monsters, each not posing much of a threat, but with the multitudes they might get through your defenses and strike you down; those types of battles. So number one and two in your paragraph.
Okay, so we are looking at an epic, extended battle between equal level opponents, with weaklings barely able to hit and powerful monsters barely able to be overcome.

This sounds like an AC and/or soak system would be the best fit. Seeing as how you want to throw in penalities when characters are damaged, you probably want some sort of parrying or defense mechanic that gets worn down over time, with the actual "damage" only occuring when the actual defense fails. Mechanically, it would mean that the "Defense" would be added to a roll to prevent taking damage, and every time that defense is used, it gets reduced a bit and isn't as effective as preventing damage from the next attack.

Assaults from multiple opponents can just add bonuses to everyone's rolls (say, +1 for every ally attacking the same target) or split the defense between multiple attackers, depending on how "high level" and "multiple attackers" you want to matter.

If this sound a bit like the existing HP system... well it kind of is. It serves the same point as D&D HP, after all: allowing the character to fight without taking damage that would impair them.


The system will be focused around skills, events, adventure, and will encourage role playing and pivotal decisions that each character has to make, but will probably contain just as big of a combat factor, because I know how much some people love their "kick-down-door" quests. Also, there will be as complete rules on traveling and dungeon crawling as I can think of. However, I might not want to spell everything out, because a good GM is one who awards characters for creativity.
Unfortunately, you haven't really told me anything here. All I see is "I want the system to allow players to do stuff," which isn't very helpful.

The rules will help to determine what most players using the system focus on, and what strategies they implement. D&D 4e is heavily focused on tactical combat, and you'll find most 4e games focusing around combat. It is poorly focused around rock climbing or tracking across a desert, and so most groups don't do that or glaze over it with a few dice rolls. D&D 3e gives characters large walls of HP, and so you see a lot of characters wade into combat without regards to how much damage they take. World of Darkness grants bonuses due to playing to a character's vices and phobias, and so you get a lot of players who will roleplay their characters' faults.

This is probably the most important question, even moreso than combat rules, and determines what you should focus on, and what you should be glossing over. How do you want a game with your system to play? What do you want the players of your system to do as they play?


I sense some misunderstanding here. The level 0 monster classes are pretty much, here are your ability score cap changes, and a couple quirks of your race. They are in no means more powerful than features, but they will give each character a few more options of features to spend XP on. If the misunderstanding was because of the CR-like feature I mentioned, it would be totally based on total XP spent. It is true, the DM will have to wing encounter "level" a bit, but that should make it all he more fun. And there will be features better than others, but those will simply cost more XP, so every thing should be golden.
If humans have no quirks and dwarves have a "Resist Magic" quirk, then dwarves are already ahead of the game before XP is spent. They're getting the "Resist Magic" quirk for free. Indeed, why isn't there a general "Resist Magic" quirk available, and if there is, why doesn't playing a dwarf 'cost' the same in XP as just picking up the quirk?

Your average dwarf would have something like: short, stout, slow movement speed, cast-iron gullet, resist magic, higher Constitution threshold, lower Dexterity threshold. Or something like that. The thing is, all of these things could be skills/quirks that could be bought with XP (or faults that could give XP, in the case of slow movement/lower Dexterity). Why not just give the dwarf race an "XP cost" like you would seperate skills, with the obvious understanding that you can't buy it after initial* character creation? Why just hand dwarven characters the abilities for free?

* except in a setting like Shadowrun, where humans can turn into other races


Criticals in this system will be truly devestating, often instant kills at same-ish XP level, and allowing for common humans to sometimes land a slightly effective blow, a lucky shot, on as much as a full grown dragon.
Remove criticals, especially when a standard weapon hit can remove a significant chunk of your ability score. If a successful hit only deals 1-2 points of damage, then criticals (doubling the damage) may be appropriate. But when you have a 20 max stat and attacks are dealing 1d8 damage, it is far more problematic.

Simply rolling high damage values will be enough of a "critical" without additional rules.

[YouLostMe]

I feel these more accurately cover everything a character's abilities are. The rolling will be different, so there might still be just 1 or 2 dump stats, but with the subcategories, you can be good at some aspects of each stat, even if it is a dumped one.

I despise simplicity for the sake of simplicity, but also do not even consider complexity for complexity's sake. I like to make everything as complex as needs be to encompass everything, but not add anything that is completely unnecessary. So unless a better reason is presented, I think I'll be keeping the 8, or even more if people think of more abilities.
My friend, players will use point-buy or re-rolls. It's inevitable, and you can't just say "no!" and make them not do it. They will want max numbers in certain stats, and you won't be able to stop them. With that true, having 8 stats means being able to pump all of 1-3 imperative stats and dump 5, instead of D&D where you had to pump 1-3 imperative stats and dump 3. This is abuse. And it will happen.

In addition, Occam's Razor is anything but simplicity for it's own sake. It is simplicity because simplicity makes things better. Players will understand more easily, less work will have to be done balancing the reliance of different numbers, etc. It's better for the gamer and the creator.


I honestly feel I should start at the very core, then work my way out. I have many ideas that pertain to everything else already brewing, but I want to start, add, then come back and modify if necessary. I am not opposed to tweaking.The core is challenges, not attributes. DCs, success chances, and resolution mechanics are literally the first mechanical aspect of every game. Then comes character abilites and then attributes. If game design were the earth, you'd be starting somewhere in the mantle. So like I said, work out from success rates.

[Knaight]

The core is challenges, not attributes. DCs, success chances, and resolution mechanics are literally the first mechanical aspect of every game. Then comes character abilites and then attributes. If game design were the earth, you'd be starting somewhere in the mantle. So like I said, work out from success rates.

Wrong. The core is conceptual stuff, as DCs, success chances, and resolution mechanics aren't even universal. Take Dread, where the dice are replaced by a Jenga tower, success chances and DCs have nothing to do with it. Take Fiasco, where its less "resolution mechanics" and more "narrative control mechanics". The design order looks something like this.

Concept

Play Structure (how, in general, does one play the game. Does one control a character who does tasks, does one control a character unilaterally until conflicts arise, does one control parts of the narrative as a whole, so on and so forth - what does one do?)

Mechanical Basis (DCs, successes, and resolution mechanics are all sort of in this stage. In d20, after one has acknowledged task based single character control play structure, rolling the d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number forms the core mechanical basis. There are peripheral mechanical bases as well, such as the whole class level paradigm)

Specifics (At this point, it varies entirely by game).

[YouLostMe]

Wrong. The core is conceptual stuff, as DCs, success chances, and resolution mechanics aren't even universal. Take Dread, where the dice are replaced by a Jenga tower, success chances and DCs have nothing to do with it. Take Fiasco, where its less "resolution mechanics" and more "narrative control mechanics". The design order looks something like this.

Concept

Play Structure (how, in general, does one play the game. Does one control a character who does tasks, does one control a character unilaterally until conflicts arise, does one control parts of the narrative as a whole, so on and so forth - what does one do?)

Mechanical Basis (DCs, successes, and resolution mechanics are all sort of in this stage. In d20, after one has acknowledged task based single character control play structure, rolling the d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a target number forms the core mechanical basis. There are peripheral mechanical bases as well, such as the whole class level paradigm)

Specifics (At this point, it varies entirely by game).

I would be willing to debate you on that--d20's core has no thematic structure, just the RNG and DCs, at its very base. From personal experience designing my own homebrew game (shameless advertisement), I decided on dicepool resolution, then DCs at every major step of the game, and THEN decided the PCs roles.

However, I find that our points of view come together at the same level here to say that attributes are not what you start with.

[Xechon]

Okay, so we are looking at an epic, extended battle between equal level opponents, with weaklings barely able to hit and powerful monsters barely able to be overcome.

This sounds like an AC and/or soak system would be the best fit. Seeing as how you want to throw in penalities when characters are damaged, you probably want some sort of parrying or defense mechanic that gets worn down over time, with the actual "damage" only occuring when the actual defense fails. Mechanically, it would mean that the "Defense" would be added to a roll to prevent taking damage, and every time that defense is used, it gets reduced a bit and isn't as effective as preventing damage from the next attack.

Assaults from multiple opponents can just add bonuses to everyone's rolls (say, +1 for every ally attacking the same target) or split the defense between multiple attackers, depending on how "high level" and "multiple attackers" you want to matter.

If this sound a bit like the existing HP system... well it kind of is. It serves the same point as D&D HP, after all: allowing the character to fight without taking damage that would impair them.

Yes, a parrying system would be nice, and it needs to be attached to endurance. Also, damage to the body needs to be attached to damage to strength (cuts arm, can not use it as well), Dex and Agi (pretty much same thing, also, cutting tendons and crap), not quite sure how to do this yet.

Also, DR will be more common, as armor will provide some, and I might add it in some other places, too. Multiple peoples will get flanking bonuses, or rather, will give the creature flanking penalties. However, depending on the size of the mob (and corresponding XP level), only lucky hits will hit the players, or else the mob could easily take them down.

I don't see any resemblance to the HP system here, and I want the battle to affect the players, it just makes sense.


Unfortunately, you haven't really told me anything here. All I see is "I want the system to allow players to do stuff," which isn't very helpful.

The rules will help to determine what most players using the system focus on, and what strategies they implement. D&D 4e is heavily focused on tactical combat, and you'll find most 4e games focusing around combat. It is poorly focused around rock climbing or tracking across a desert, and so most groups don't do that or glaze over it with a few dice rolls. D&D 3e gives characters large walls of HP, and so you see a lot of characters wade into combat without regards to how much damage they take. World of Darkness grants bonuses due to playing to a character's vices and phobias, and so you get a lot of players who will roleplay their characters' faults.

This is probably the most important question, even moreso than combat rules, and determines what you should focus on, and what you should be glossing over. How do you want a game with your system to play? What do you want the players of your system to do as they play?

I want the players to roleplay. I want them to feel like they are their character, and who their character is is important. At the beginning of my time playing D&D, I switched characters literately every session. I wanted a good character, and every time I made a better one, I found a new class or combination that seems to work better (not always true, I ended up playing a soulknife once). Needless to say the campaign didn't last long. I cast out so many characters without caring at all. I want that to change.

That said, I want to avoid trying to glaze anything over too much, to accept all types of players. I also like tactical combat, but a way to make the grid system not nessesary in some combat situations, because I do not know a DM who wants to make a map for everything, much less play a mob individual by individual. So some group fighting skills might be useful too.


If humans have no quirks and dwarves have a "Resist Magic" quirk, then dwarves are already ahead of the game before XP is spent. They're getting the "Resist Magic" quirk for free. Indeed, why isn't there a general "Resist Magic" quirk available, and if there is, why doesn't playing a dwarf 'cost' the same in XP as just picking up the quirk?

Your average dwarf would have something like: short, stout, slow movement speed, cast-iron gullet, resist magic, higher Constitution threshold, lower Dexterity threshold. Or something like that. The thing is, all of these things could be skills/quirks that could be bought with XP (or faults that could give XP, in the case of slow movement/lower Dexterity). Why not just give the dwarf race an "XP cost" like you would seperate skills, with the obvious understanding that you can't buy it after initial* character creation? Why just hand dwarven characters the abilities for free?

* except in a setting like Shadowrun, where humans can turn into other races

Who said humans don't get quirks? The only problem I see with what you suggested is this; That means I'd have to hand out XP at the start, when I want them all to be balanced anyway, and everyone has to have a race, or they just don't exist.


Remove criticals, especially when a standard weapon hit can remove a significant chunk of your ability score. If a successful hit only deals 1-2 points of damage, then criticals (doubling the damage) may be appropriate. But when you have a 20 max stat and attacks are dealing 1d8 damage, it is far more problematic.

Simply rolling high damage values will be enough of a "critical" without additional rules.

Yeah, well normal hits wont kill instantly usually (exceptions; pretty much anything bigger than you) and I want a mechanic for lucky shots. Maybe not exactly a critical mechanic, but something like that.


My friend, players will use point-buy or re-rolls. It's inevitable, and you can't just say "no!" and make them not do it. They will want max numbers in certain stats, and you won't be able to stop them. With that true, having 8 stats means being able to pump all of 1-3 imperative stats and dump 5, instead of D&D where you had to pump 1-3 imperative stats and dump 3. This is abuse. And it will happen.

In addition, Occam's Razor is anything but simplicity for it's own sake. It is simplicity because simplicity makes things better. Players will understand more easily, less work will have to be done balancing the reliance of different numbers, etc. It's better for the gamer and the creator.

I know some players will cheat, but there's no way to stop it, an and really, if they want to ruin good balance and roleplaying opportunities, let them. Probably the only way to counter this is to make the GM roll for them, and then the player will get mad at the GM for rolling them bad scores. So really, its just a loop, so I try not to worry too much about it.

Well then, I am using Occam's Razor. I will simulate realism in the most complete way possible, then playtest and simplify the systems too complex to play. Picking easier options would just be homebrew in my mind.


And thank you Knaight for clearing that last one up for me.

Okay, so I think I will just say for now that the ability score range is 1-60 each, roll 4d12 to determine them, and each subcategory has a range of 1-20, with no ability modifiers. And so that I keep this idea for later, skills will be rolled on a 1d10, 5 and up adds one to your check consecutively (5=0, 6=
+1, ect.), and the opposite for rolls below 5.

EDIT:
I seem to have forgotten to go back and reply to the post that came as I was posting, sorry about that Prime32.



This hurts realism. If I make a character with a magical forcefield and skin harder than diamond, he should not die by falling off a roof. Likewise, something falling quickly will do more damage IRL than something falling slowly.

Well, skin harder than diamond is not exactly realism, even in the system when it includes magic. And if they have all of that, they wont die from falling off a roof. Their DR will take care of it. And yes, something falling quicker will cause more damage, but a elephant falling on you will kill you anyway, so it wont matter. @YouLostMe , Occam's Razor ;-)

For another post that just leaked in:


I would be willing to debate you on that--d20's core has no thematic structure, just the RNG and DCs, at its very base. From personal experience designing my own homebrew game (shameless advertisement), I decided on dicepool resolution, then DCs at every major step of the game, and THEN decided the PCs roles.

However, I find that our points of view come together at the same level here to say that attributes are not what you start with.

Can you please tell me about dicepool? I can't download that file on my ipod.

And I am not starting here technically, I am getting help here, and adding all of my ideas as I go.

[erikun]

I want the players to roleplay. I want them to feel like they are their character, and who their character is is important.
I... really need some kind of design goal if I'm going to provide any good advise or ideas for the system. As in, I need something specific, a way of saying "I want the project to be like this" so that everyone is on the same page and can gauge how well parts of the project are progressing.

Without that, the entire project is a bit Generic Roleplaying Game with a few of your personal quirks... which really isn't something I can help with, as I don't know your personal quirks as well as you do. I could present some mechanics that you might not be familiar with to modify or substitute, but a very generic "do well" or "realistic" or "everything" isn't something that I could advise on.

As for a few other points:


Also, damage to the body needs to be attached to damage to strength (cuts arm, can not use it as well), Dex and Agi (pretty much same thing, also, cutting tendons and crap), not quite sure how to do this yet.

Also, DR will be more common, as armor will provide some, and I might add it in some other places, too.

exceptions; pretty much anything bigger than you
A lot of players will avoid situations where their characters will be killed or permanently injured, and will especially avoid engaging in such situations repeatedly. I think that if your system utilized bodily destruction (cutting tendons) or outright death ("anything bigger than you") as the results of failed combat, then you'll see a lot of players choosing to bypass the combat completely with ambushes, ranged attacks, or magic that neutralizes the combat.


Who said humans don't get quirks? The only problem I see with what you suggested is this; That means I'd have to hand out XP at the start, when I want them all to be balanced anyway, and everyone has to have a race, or they just don't exist.
The idea of starting XP/skill points in point-buy systems is to differentiate characters with different starting skills at the beginning of the game. The character having gone through a page tutelage will have different skills and knowledges that one being raised as a blacksmith, or one who grew up as an outdoorsman.

Starting everyone off at 0 XP means that all humans end up nearly identical.

[Xechon]

I'm going to answer your posts in a different order than posted for sake of explanation.


A lot of players will avoid situations where their characters will be killed or permanently injured, and will especially avoid engaging in such situations repeatedly. I think that if your system utilized bodily destruction (cutting tendons) or outright death ("anything bigger than you") as the results of failed combat, then you'll see a lot of players choosing to bypass the combat completely with ambushes, ranged attacks, or magic that neutralizes the combat.

Exactly. Tactical, reasonable, combat. Not wading waist deep in kobolds, or trying to confront a giant head on. Makes the players think instead of pointlessly running into combat. Forces them to think about the plot, rather than just zone out until the fighting starts.


I... really need some kind of design goal if I'm going to provide any good advise or ideas for the system. As in, I need something specific, a way of saying "I want the project to be like this" so that everyone is on the same page and can gauge how well parts of the project are progressing.

Without that, the entire project is a bit Generic Roleplaying Game with a few of your personal quirks... which really isn't something I can help with, as I don't know your personal quirks as well as you do. I could present some mechanics that you might not be familiar with to modify or substitute, but a very generic "do well" or "realistic" or "everything" isn't something that I could advise on.

Okay, so... What you want to know is what to work on first, and probably the most? Well, that's kinda hard. Let's say we will base it on the skill system, because that's a mechanic that can be easily added to. So instead of rolling a standard to hit check, you could have a "ranged accuracy" skill, and the like. I hope that finally answers your question. Sorry about the confusion.


The idea of starting XP/skill points in point-buy systems is to differentiate characters with different starting skills at the beginning of the game. The character having gone through a page tutelage will have different skills and knowledges that one being raised as a blacksmith, or one who grew up as an outdoorsman.

Interesting concept, one I pretty much forgot about from studying d20 modern. However, everyone, with the exception of little traits, of the same race are the same, and then I can add on a "background bonus" that will have to all be balanced creatively. But I will try to add that to the system too. But I hope you understand why I don't want to have level 0 races be just XP buys, the base is the same.

[Prime32]

Well, skin harder than diamond is not exactly realism, even in the system when it includes magic. And if they have all of that, they wont die from falling off a roof. Their DR will take care of it. And yes, something falling quicker will cause more damage, but a elephant falling on you will kill you anyway, so it wont matter.Eh? If things falling on them doesn't deal damage, just kills them, then how would an ability which reduces damage help? Plus, what if an elephant falls on a whale?

The thing you have to understand about D&D and realism is that D&D defines a normal human as an lv1-3 commoner with 10 Con and without maxed hp at lv1. Meaning 2-7 hit points. Meaning that almost any falling object will kill them.
If you're playing an lv6 fighter with 22 Con then you've chosen to play someone with superhuman resistance to harm. If you want characters to be as easy to kill as normal humans, play normal humans.

EDIT: If you're bothered by the physical limits of the human body making high hp totals implausible, don't be. Just say that combat experience increases your ki, and it protects you from harm. By the time you're reduced to 1HD-worth of hit points, your ki has been worn down and attacks hit your body directly (which is no more resistant to damage than anyone else's). This is the standard explanation in martial arts series.
Vitality and Wound Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) go a bit more in-depth here, allowing critical hits to bypass this defence and hurt you normally.


I want the players to roleplay. I want them to feel like they are their character, and who their character is is important. At the beginning of my time playing D&D, I switched characters literately every session. I wanted a good character, and every time I made a better one, I found a new class or combination that seems to work better (not always true, I ended up playing a soulknife once). Needless to say the campaign didn't last long. I cast out so many characters without caring at all. I want that to change.
I suggest looking at systems like FUDGE and FATE.

There is only one way to build a good swordsman in FATE - write "My character is a good swordsman" on your sheet. Well, that's not precisely true, writing "Trained in swordplay by the Five Masters" could be more powerful. Yes, fleshing out your character's personality and backstory makes them better.
Basically, if you write that your character is stubborn then whenever being stubborn would hinder you you can act it out to gain an Fate Point, and whenever being stubborn would help you can spend an Fate Point to gain a bonus.

http://www.faterpg.com/resources/

[YouLostMe]

All right, I am withdrawing from here. Enjoy your realism simulation.

[Knaight]

I would be willing to debate you on that--d20's core has no thematic structure, just the RNG and DCs, at its very base. From personal experience designing my own homebrew game (shameless advertisement), I decided on dicepool resolution, then DCs at every major step of the game, and THEN decided the PCs roles.

However, I find that our points of view come together at the same level here to say that attributes are not what you start with.

It does have play structure however. One has a character, which they manipulate, where the mechanical interactions are focused on achieving or not achieving tasks. And PC roles are often more setting than anything, unless they are core to the concept (see: The Iron Fist of New Atlantis, which I submitted in the recent homebrew competition on these boards). Granted, I'm not as good about following my own advice as I'd like to be - TIFNA is basically a merger of several of my prior ideas, some of which were basically fully formed eureka moments more than designed games - but with a rules heavy system it does become pretty critical.

And attributes are definitely not what you start with.

Now, to other topics. Xenchon, what game have you played? I'm getting the sense that it has been D&D, d20 modern, maybe SAGA, and nothing else, which is a terrible basis from which to start designing.


I suggest looking at systems like FUDGE and FATE.

There is only one way to build a good swordsman in FATE - write "My character is a good swordsman" on your sheet. Well, that's not precisely true, writing "Trained in swordplay by the Five Masters" could be more powerful. Yes, fleshing out your character's personality and backstory makes them better.
Basically, if you write that your character is stubborn then whenever being stubborn would hinder you you can act it out to gain an Fate Point, and whenever being stubborn would help you can spend an Fate Point to gain a bonus.

http://www.faterpg.com/resources/

FATE still has a skill system. Sword combat is basically a skill based affair, so take a relevant combat skill, take a stunt if necessary, call it a day. Then take aspects that enforce your personality, and your character will fight harder and better for the things close to them, much like real life, as you are using Aspects.

[Xechon]

Eh? If things falling on them doesn't deal damage, just kills them, then how would an ability which reduces damage help? Plus, what if an elephant falls on a whale?

The thing you have to understand about D&D and realism is that D&D defines a normal human as an lv1-3 commoner with 10 Con and without maxed hp at lv1. Meaning 2-7 hit points. Meaning that almost any falling object will kill them.
If you're playing an lv6 fighter with 22 Con then you've chosen to play someone with superhuman resistance to harm. If you want characters to be as easy to kill as normal humans, play normal humans.

EDIT: If you're bothered by the physical limits of the human body making high hp totals implausible, don't be. Just say that combat experience increases your ki, and it protects you from harm. By the time you're reduced to 1HD-worth of hit points, your ki has been worn down and attacks hit your body directly (which is no more resistant to damage than anyone else's). This is the standard explanation in martial arts series.
Vitality and Wound Points go a bit more in-depth here, allowing critical hits to bypass this defence and hurt you normally.


You're right. Damage needs to be dealt and size category taken into consideration. I will do just that.

A falling elephant should be able to do enough damage to kill all but the toughest characters in lucky situations. Also, armor in this situation would, instead of provide resistance to damage for a character, collapse in and puncture the character, if not killing by impact, making him slowly bleed to death. There should probably be something that covers that.

I don't like the idea of using a supernatural system in core rules just because it hurts people who want to run a game without them in it. In 3.5, this was mainly magic items, and the problem there was some classes were way too reliant on them, with the biggest example being the fighter. In d20 modern they dont include magic items, because it would break the "future realistic technology" setting. That is one of the things I'm trying to specifically avoid in this system.

I have used the Vitality and wound points variant, and I love it. It seems the best way to fix HP without rebuilding D&D itself. But I am rebuilding D&D, so I am trying to fix every system as well as I can. But thank you for giving me a variant. Even though I've seen this one before, I love it when people give me variants to evaluate and tweak. Just a side note though, anything from Unearthed Arcana (or at least everything from it that is in http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Variant_Rules) I have already seen, but any other homebrew thats worth looking at I would love to see.


I suggest looking at systems like FUDGE and FATE.

There is only one way to build a good swordsman in FATE - write "My character is a good swordsman" on your sheet. Well, that's not precisely true, writing "Trained in swordplay by the Five Masters" could be more powerful. Yes, fleshing out your character's personality and backstory makes them better.
Basically, if you write that your character is stubborn then whenever being stubborn would hinder you you can act it out to gain an Fate Point, and whenever being stubborn would help you can spend an Fate Point to gain a bonus.

I love the FATE system. I have yet to look up the FUDGE system, but I will get to that soon. There is still limits based on skills in this system, so you can't just say "I am Chuck Norris". That would be WAY overpowered.

I like to reward roleplaying your character, but I don't think just giving them a point to rearrange the world as they see fit is what I want. This does lead to something I forgot to mention in my second post: Alignment. Alignment will be free form, anything goes. The Big Five Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits) may be used in character creation to get a general idea of his/her personality. I may also hook this up to a reward for roleplaying system. However, the biggest thing that I have thought of about this part of the system is karma. Do good things and good things happen, right? Well, Add in the 7 virtues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Virtues) and 7 vices (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=7+vices) from catholic religion (I like the number 7), and then reward characters with Karma points if they show virtues, and giving the DM Karma points against that character if they commit vices. These Karma points are kind of like Action Points from the Unearthed Arcana variant, but they can be used in any situation you want.


All right, I am withdrawing from here. Enjoy your realism simulation.

So no explanation on dice pool then?


It does have play structure however. One has a character, which they manipulate, where the mechanical interactions are focused on achieving or not achieving tasks. And PC roles are often more setting than anything, unless they are core to the concept (see: The Iron Fist of New Atlantis, which I submitted in the recent homebrew competition on these boards). Granted, I'm not as good about following my own advice as I'd like to be - TIFNA is basically a merger of several of my prior ideas, some of which were basically fully formed eureka moments more than designed games - but with a rules heavy system it does become pretty critical.

And attributes are definitely not what you start with.

Now, to other topics. Xenchon, what game have you played? I'm getting the sense that it has been D&D, d20 modern, maybe SAGA, and nothing else, which is a terrible basis from which to start designing.

Thanks for backing me up there.

Honestly, I have only played D&D, 3.5e and 4.0. One of my friends are setting up a homebrewed version of d20 modern, but I don't have very much experience in D&D. However, I have read every D&D book I can get my hands on cover to cover, and have wasted many days straight reading forums worth of homebrew and ideas. And I long for more.

However, if I don't do this, who will? And they wont have my ideas, so I find it best to do this. And that is also one of the reasons I brought this here. You all are the ones with the actual experience, and you can help me make this work, and improve on it with better ideas than my original ones.


FATE still has a skill system. Sword combat is basically a skill based affair, so take a relevant combat skill, take a stunt if necessary, call it a day. Then take aspects that enforce your personality, and your character will fight harder and better for the things close to them, much like real life, as you are using Aspects.

Oh, didn't see this one at first... Well this ones better than my comment above, but i'll keep it on there.

[Xechon]

Also, I have realized that my original Ability Score layout doesn't help much at all, so I propose this one instead:

Constitution: the physical character of the body as to strength, health, etc.: He has a strong constitution.
-Strength: the quality or state of being strong; bodily or muscular power; vigor.
-Agility: the power of moving quickly and easily; nimbleness: exercises demanding agility.
-Dexterity: skill or adroitness in using the hands or body; agility. (adroitness might be a good word to substitute, but I think Dex covers it well enough)

Intelligence:capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
-Acumen: the ability to judge well; keen discernment; insight
-Charisma: a special personal quality or power of an individual making him capable of influencing or inspiring large numbers of people
-Mentality: the set of one's mind; view; outlook: a liberal mentality.

This design suggests that for the physical abilities, if constitution is damaged, then Strength, Agility, and Dexterity are affected by this, and in the same style with the Mental Abilities. However, as Constitution is the health of the body, and mentality is the health of the mind, I might switch mentality with Intelligence here, but for right now intelligence seems to make the most sense. These are dictionary definitions, and while Dexterity mentions Agility as a definition, this is not very accurate, because Agility encompasses acrobatics, while Dexterity is more skill at manipulating objects, especially small ones.

Also, as you should notice, there are no more subcategories. I realized that it wouldn't harm realism too much at all to make the subcategories skills (not all of them, of course, but about 2 from each category). It also makes the system a lot easier to work with, because you don't have to keep track of all of those annoying classifications. I am working on a list of skills now, and will post when I have it finished (as in before advice and criticism done).

[Knaight]

Honestly, I have only played D&D, 3.5e and 4.0. One of my friends are setting up a homebrewed version of d20 modern, but I don't have very much experience in D&D. However, I have read every D&D book I can get my hands on cover to cover, and have wasted many days straight reading forums worth of homebrew and ideas. And I long for more.

Alright then, lets talk fantasy. There are a handful of really impressive books in a handful of systems that are basically obligatory reading to work within the genre - moreover, each and every one of these is more realistic than D&D:

Burning Wheel: Burning Wheel does low magic character centered Tolkien fantasy, and basically nothing else. However, it does a very good job, and its Belief Instict Trait system is somewhat similar to Aspects, and provide incentive to role play. Its long, its rules heavy, it isn't necessarily intuitive to grok, but it simply must be looked at.

Reign: Reign uses the unique ORE dice system, which is in and of itself a clever mechanic worth looking at. However, it also has a brutal health system that still uses hit points, it makes armor and such count, it has tactical combat, and it handles character level stuff well. Then there is the icing on the cake - Reign has mechanics built to handle organizations, and can cover everything from international politics to gang turf wars with them.

GURPS Fantasy: Its GURPS. GURPS is essentially the generic system, with everything else being far less known, its crunchy, its detailed, and it uses a hit point system that you might be interested in.

Fudge Fantasy: The core Fudge rules are free, but this isn't. Its an example of a rules light system, and i point to it mostly because of the whole unified trait ladder aspect, that is used for everything, and for its numerical scale mechanic (essentially, size categories are replaced by a logarithmic scale of real numbers. It seems like a mechanic you should take a look at).

Savage Worlds: I'll say this upfront - I don't like this game. However, it does have its own framework, and its a big enough game that it probably requires a look at it. Plus, its only ten dollars, so if you don't like it it isn't a big deal.

[Dictum Mortuum]

d&d is not for you.

I'd suggest taking a look at generic systems like GURPS or even D6. Also I think whitewolf games would be better.

[Hanuman]

The funny thing is, the more time you spend making a variant system the less time you educate, experience or explore real life, which is what reality is.

I'd suggest to use an established system and to add realism create a lax in the rules, go out and explore, educate yourself, take courses and classes and work to afford all this.

Really, I'd go out and make a sword, take anatomy/physiology, go diving and spelunking and travel. Set yourself on fire, lay in a river, jump into a strong wind front, carry 50lb of gear on a hike, dig large holes with your bare hands. This is how character is made, and really character and attention to detail, thinking how you would describe your experience in all senses, this is the basis of storytelling.

[Roderick_BR]

If you want a class-less d20 system, I suggest looking into Mutants & Masterminds, that uses a feat-based system to buy powers. It kinda lacks a way to gain XP, as characters mostly gain powers when the plot demands, pretty much like typical comic book super-heros, but it can give you some tips on how to build your system.

That said, what you want is a d20 version of gurps, right? Also inspired on that, some "chains"/"paths"/whatever, could have different costs to reflect different powers. Magic, for example, costs a lot, so being a dedicated caster leaves little points for other stuff, like combat training, while a warrior like can spend more times in combat and stats, and skill monkeys may use more points in skills than enything else, while still leaving some space to mix and match styles, if that's what you are trying to do.

Honestly, while I think that class and levels are the basis of any medieval fantasy game, a customizable class-less system not based on Gurps would be nice (nothing against, just too many rules and complications, and Gurps's realistic system is not for medieval fantasy).

[erikun]

Okay, so... What you want to know is what to work on first, and probably the most?
Sorry for taking so long to respond back.

If you want (good) help, then you'll need a clear idea on objectives and what you want to accomplish out of the project. And I don't mean something vague like "eight ability scores rather than six" or "fixing the alignment system", but rather a solid idea of what your system will look like or accomplish when it's done. Otherwise, you'll spend all your time making adjustments or replacements for the various parts of the system, and likely end up with an awkward and clunky set of d20 houserules.


And for the seven virtues/vices, you could look at the new World of Darkness rulebook.

[Xechon]

Alright then, lets talk fantasy. There are a handful of really impressive books in a handful of systems that are basically obligatory reading to work within the genre - moreover, each and every one of these is more realistic than D&D:

Burning Wheel: Burning Wheel does low magic character centered Tolkien fantasy, and basically nothing else. However, it does a very good job, and its Belief Instict Trait system is somewhat similar to Aspects, and provide incentive to role play. Its long, its rules heavy, it isn't necessarily intuitive to grok, but it simply must be looked at.

Reign: Reign uses the unique ORE dice system, which is in and of itself a clever mechanic worth looking at. However, it also has a brutal health system that still uses hit points, it makes armor and such count, it has tactical combat, and it handles character level stuff well. Then there is the icing on the cake - Reign has mechanics built to handle organizations, and can cover everything from international politics to gang turf wars with them.

GURPS Fantasy: Its GURPS. GURPS is essentially the generic system, with everything else being far less known, its crunchy, its detailed, and it uses a hit point system that you might be interested in.

Fudge Fantasy: The core Fudge rules are free, but this isn't. Its an example of a rules light system, and i point to it mostly because of the whole unified trait ladder aspect, that is used for everything, and for its numerical scale mechanic (essentially, size categories are replaced by a logarithmic scale of real numbers. It seems like a mechanic you should take a look at).

Savage Worlds: I'll say this upfront - I don't like this game. However, it does have its own framework, and its a big enough game that it probably requires a look at it. Plus, its only ten dollars, so if you don't like it it isn't a big deal.

Wow. Okay, I have looked at a couple of these, and am actually using some mods of burning wheels content (thanks to erikun in a previous post that kind of just...died), and I am loving FUDGE. I will take another look at GURPS, but the first time I saw it I looked at the character sheet to get a general idea of it, and immediately stopped reading it. It looked like the opposite of what I am trying to do, it just looked so...simplified. However, I will give it a fair go this time.

If there are any interesting features in these, please tell me here; I can read the ones that are free online, but I would very much like to not have to spend any money on this. I am not opposed to forking out some cash eventually if a system is needed, but without a steady income yet, I like to hold onto cash if I can.


d&d is not for you.

I'd suggest taking a look at generic systems like GURPS or even D6. Also I think whitewolf games would be better.

Yeah, I know, that's why I'm trying to fix it.

I will look into these, thanks for the suggestions.


The funny thing is, the more time you spend making a variant system the less time you educate, experience or explore real life, which is what reality is.

I'd suggest to use an established system and to add realism create a lax in the rules, go out and explore, educate yourself, take courses and classes and work to afford all this.

Really, I'd go out and make a sword, take anatomy/physiology, go diving and spelunking and travel. Set yourself on fire, lay in a river, jump into a strong wind front, carry 50lb of gear on a hike, dig large holes with your bare hands. This is how character is made, and really character and attention to detail, thinking how you would describe your experience in all senses, this is the basis of storytelling.

Yeah, bit extreme, I'm just a lowly gamer nerd here...

I will probably make revisions and additions to the system once finished, but I don't think I will set myself on fire to find out how it feels...intentionally, at least.


If you want a class-less d20 system, I suggest looking into Mutants & Masterminds, that uses a feat-based system to buy powers. It kinda lacks a way to gain XP, as characters mostly gain powers when the plot demands, pretty much like typical comic book super-heros, but it can give you some tips on how to build your system.

That said, what you want is a d20 version of gurps, right? Also inspired on that, some "chains"/"paths"/whatever, could have different costs to reflect different powers. Magic, for example, costs a lot, so being a dedicated caster leaves little points for other stuff, like combat training, while a warrior like can spend more times in combat and stats, and skill monkeys may use more points in skills than enything else, while still leaving some space to mix and match styles, if that's what you are trying to do.

Honestly, while I think that class and levels are the basis of any medieval fantasy game, a customizable class-less system not based on Gurps would be nice (nothing against, just too many rules and complications, and Gurps's realistic system is not for medieval fantasy).

Okay, I will also look into Mutants and Masterminds. I'm thinking about putting everything into the skill system right now, mostly because it could all work, and seems like the best and easiest way to do this, but then I think "I am being poisoned by the idea of Occam's Razor," and therefore am indecisive. If I did this, there would be no feats or powers or anything, but there would be more skills, more skill uses (dodge skill would encompass evasion and the like), and some elaborate skill systems for things like magic (skill level would be caster level, ect.). Everyone, please leave a post on whether this is a good idea or not, and maybe an explanation on your opinion, that would be great.

I will probably base it off more FATE and FUDGE than GURPS, just because I have fallen in love with some parts of those systems, so you might just get what you wish for :-) And medieval fantasy will definitely be able to be played in my system. While I would like to play a future or modern setting, the medieval is still my favorite. And I want them all to work anyway, so...


Sorry for taking so long to respond back.

If you want (good) help, then you'll need a clear idea on objectives and what you want to accomplish out of the project. And I don't mean something vague like "eight ability scores rather than six" or "fixing the alignment system", but rather a solid idea of what your system will look like or accomplish when it's done. Otherwise, you'll spend all your time making adjustments or replacements for the various parts of the system, and likely end up with an awkward and clunky set of d20 houserules.


And for the seven virtues/vices, you could look at the new World of Darkness rulebook.

It's fine, please no one feel like t you're rushed to post. There may be times where I can't replay for a couple day's time, sometimes even a week, and I understand that people, even the kinds who sit on a nerd game forum and argue about nerd topics, have other lives :-) No offense to anyone who isn't okay with being called a nerd, sorry about that.

Now on to the actual content, how's this for clear objectives:
1.) I would like to improve upon the ability score system, to allow it to cover more of a person's... well, abilities.
2.) I am trying to fix the inaccuracy and brokenness of the HP system in 3.5e. A real person does not spectacularly gain more health; they gain the skill to defend against more attacks, and while they may become tougher and able to resist more damage and pain, this is reflected in a character's constitution score.
3.) I want to have the system use an XP point-buy system instead of levels, to allow for more, easier customization for players, and to smooth out "multiclassing", so that it does not destroy balance and upset players because they have to forfeit XP for a good combination.
4.) I am going to put all of the miscellaneous systems that D&D and d20 modern have into the skill system, so none of them get lost or underplayed, and it just keeps everything together and nice.
5.) I will add more combat maneuvers for more tactical combat options, and put these also in the skill system.
6.) I am trying to add more overall realism in the various systems of D&D, and will take the most complete system I think of, no matter of how complex it is, unless a better one is thought of.
7.) Magic will be more complex, and completely unnecessary in my system. That way, a player who wants the power of magic has to be creative about it, and for GM's who don't want to include it in their campaigns don't have to.
8.) Technology and Medieval/Magic should be both able to be implemented in the same system. This does not mean technology should be balanced with Medieval/Magic in power, that it up to the GM.
9.) Backgrounds should have more of an affect on a starting character than a possible profession skill. Where you came from, what type of environment, your education, and other things do affect who you are, and this ned to be implemented.
10.) Roleplaying should be encouraged and rewarded instead of a rare side affect of playing a combat simulator. The system will not be focused on solely combat, and therefore a character needs to be an actual person, someone the player cares about and knows well.

I actually made that on the home page of my wiki last night, and if this doesn't help, then I am very confused.

Yeah, you're the one who told me about it :-) Remember this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11756940#post11756940

But I'll see if my friend has a copy of this I can borrow, just to make sure I got everything right.


Okay, so here is my wiki: http://thebetterdand.wetpaint.com/

It is largely unfinished as of right now, but I refurbished it and is now at least presentable. It used to be just a wild bunch of variants I was planning to add. I'll get to adding more content over the weekend, but if anyone wants to be a contributor directly to this site (There will be rules, you can't just delete everything or replace my content with you own), I just need an email. If you don't want everyone to see your email, just send me a private message or ask me to tell you my email address, and you can send me one that way. Thanks for all the systems, everyone.

[Knaight]

Wow. Okay, I have looked at a couple of these, and am actually using some mods of burning wheels content (thanks to erikun in a previous post that kind of just...died), and I am loving FUDGE. I will take another look at GURPS, but the first time I saw it I looked at the character sheet to get a general idea of it, and immediately stopped reading it. It looked like the opposite of what I am trying to do, it just looked so...simplified. However, I will give it a fair go this time.

GURPS is a far more complicated game than Fudge. I'd argue that it gets in the way as a result, but then, there's not a lot of overlap in the Fudge and GURPS fanbases, and I fall pretty clearly into the former. Fudge has been my main system for something like nine years at this point, and I don't even know how much Fudge homebrew I have. Its a lot, of that I'm sure.

[erikun]

Now on to the actual content, how's this for clear objectives:
Alright, this does give me a lot more to work with.


1.) I would like to improve upon the ability score system, to allow it to cover more of a person's... well, abilities.
Abilities (or the system's equilivant) are largely arbitrary and generally come from what is important in the system. There are a lot of systems that only use something similar to Mind-Body-Spirit, and work just fine. One of the more unusual system I've heard of uses Legs, Feet, Arms, Hands, Torso, Face, and Mind (possibly one or two more). The idea was that whichever body part is involved in the action is what is tested. Legs are for running, feet are for balance, arms are for swinging swords, face is for perception and social rolls, and so on.

One system that I (partially) made up only used Strength, Agility, Constitution, and Perception. There were no mental stats, because it was assumed that any thinking that the character needed to do would be done by the player. (There were static Knowledged that determined if the character knew a fact, but nothing rolled.) There are no social skills, because it would be assumed that the player would need to come up with some convincing way to influence NPCs.

This is why I was focused on how combat would play out and what else the players would do at the game table, while ignoring anything you said about Attributes: the necessary Attributes will come from what is necessary in play. It may be that you need four physical attributes, or it may be that one works just as well. It is hard to say at this point if, say, a difference between Acumen and Mentality is a critical part of the system, or if it is just two more pointless stats.


2.) I am trying to fix the inaccuracy and brokenness of the HP system in 3.5e. A real person does not spectacularly gain more health; they gain the skill to defend against more attacks, and while they may become tougher and able to resist more damage and pain, this is reflected in a character's constitution score.
Hit Points is both a shorthand abstraction and a way to allow characters to survive threats that might otherwise kill them. Characters in systems with HP are far, far more likely to go out and do things than characters in systems with wounds or something similar. The latter are more likely to launch an overwhelming attack only once, or overlevel and "slum" against less dangerous opponents.

Trying to take characters from one system (high risk-takers) and put them in another (wound system) doesn't work. It's not just that it isn't pretty; it just doesn't work. You end up with either dead characters or characters switching their playstyle to the new system; you don't get exceptional risk-takers who are still aware of their wound limitations. As the old saying goes, "There are old soldiers, and there are bold soldiers, but there are no old, bold soldiers."

If you are getting a lot of protests against the wound system, this is likely the reason. Players don't run off to fight dragons that will casually eat their characters every time; they won't run off into fights where they can casually get their characters killed every time either. If you're thinking D&D with Wounds, you'll either get angry players or something very not-D&D. (Note that I mean wounds as "penality for every hit" rather than 3e's alternate "mini-HP" wounds system.)

If you want to change HP - which probably needs a change of some form - here are a few ideas.

Go back to the original idea behind HP from wargames: They being Hit Points. As in, they were the number of times a character could be hit before death. Most heroic characters would have 6-10 HP (perhaps half their CON, for D&D). Getting successfully hit by a weapon would lose 1 HP. A critical would perhaps be 2 HP.

Change HP into something other than "Hit Points". This is the idea behind a 'Parry Endurance' from earlier; it basically functions similar to HP, although you are wearing down the opponent's "endurance to parrying blows" rather than Hit Points.

Wounds/injuries/whatever that grant -1 per injury to the relevant statistic, or all rolls. Breaks/destroys that completely render the limb inoperatable.

If you want realistic death mechanics, then do something that may seem counterintuitive and not allow them to die from combat. No, seriously, most people do not drop dead from a sword stab or gunshot wound. About the only things that would reasonably kill a person would be: brain damage/destruction, heart damage, spinal cord damage, bleeding out, suffocation, or mass organ failure. The last one could probably be covered by bleeding out, too. This also solves the problem of "What do we do with fallen opponents?" (They will bleed out and die.) "How do I keep an ally alive?" (Get them relevant medical support.) or "Why do I instantly die from being stabbed in the lung in Medievia, but in Futuristica I can survive for treatment?" (You don't die immediately in either, but Medievia doesn't have a way of saving your lung before inevitable death.)


3.) I want to have the system use an XP point-buy system instead of levels, to allow for more, easier customization for players, and to smooth out "multiclassing", so that it does not destroy balance and upset players because they have to forfeit XP for a good combination.
You might want to look at Mutants and Masterminds for a good way to combine point-buy and levels. It allows maximum power caps (determined by level) to prevent gross minmaxing, while allowing you to determine the rough challange level of the group.

If you throw out levels completely, then look at how Shadowrun/World of Darkness/GURPS handles challanges. You will notice that these games tend towards the "You get XP for completing the mission" style rewards, and that random fights usually don't grant any XP.


4.) I am going to put all of the miscellaneous systems that D&D and d20 modern have into the skill system, so none of them get lost or underplayed, and it just keeps everything together and nice.
I'll be honest, I think that d20 has an absolutly horrendous skill system. It might be better if you switch it over to XP-point-buy, but as it is it is exceptionally clunky and not worth much.


5.) I will add more combat maneuvers for more tactical combat options, and put these also in the skill system.
I would recommend making 'combat maneuvers' and 'tactical combat' part of a revision of the core fighting mechanics, rather than class abilities or skills to buy. That is, rather than having Improved Disarm and special weapons and maneuvers for disarming foes, just make the basic disarm mechanics less stupid.


6.) I am trying to add more overall realism in the various systems of D&D, and will take the most complete system I think of, no matter of how complex it is, unless a better one is thought of.
This, I am afraid, will simply not happen. d20 + random bonus simply isn't realistic, and some of your other goals (climatic combat clashes, XP-point-buy) may come into direct conflict with that.

Heck, let me restate that: everything you design will come in direct conflict with this goal. You will constantly be balancing "Do I make this more realistic?" with "Do I make this less clunky?" I mean, look at the 'realistic' death mechanics I mentioned, above. On the one hand, it probably isn't that realistic, as it technically means characters can wander around while suffocating or with their heart hanging out of their chest. On the other hand, it can be too clunky because it basically requires DM adjudication to determine when any character is dead, and would likely extend over several pages detailing how long it takes an unconcious person to bleed out, to die from a punctured lung, to die from a damaged liver, etc.


7.) Magic will be more complex, and completely unnecessary in my system. That way, a player who wants the power of magic has to be creative about it, and for GM's who don't want to include it in their campaigns don't have to.
I would recommend making a specific magic system in mind, as opposed to one that is supposed to apply to "all" magic settings. That is, you could have an Element-Bending, or a Vancian Magic, or a Final Fantasy system, or Tolkien magic, or Lovecraft.

One problem that 3.5e had was to "attempt it all", and what happened was that nothing else was as good. Different magic systems helps to solve the problem by giving each single system limits, along with a distinct focus in what it will and will not allow. Multiple different (and flavorful) magic systems will also help with making them distinct, as opposed to just "at-will-arcane" Warlocks and "know-full-spelllist" Beguilers and "PP-magic" Psions.

Even if you just use one system, it will help set your system apart. A general fantasy D&D with an Airbending magic system would be more interesting than a general fantasy D&D with just MP replacing spell slots.


8.) Technology and Medieval/Magic should be both able to be implemented in the same system. This does not mean technology should be balanced with Medieval/Magic in power, that it up to the GM.
You will probably want to keep firearms and such in mind when creating the rules, specifically stuff like how armor works. How overpowering Technology is will largely be determined by how overpowering large amounts of money are in the system; if superior equipment can make up of surpass levels of skill, then superior technology will likely do the same.


9.) Backgrounds should have more of an affect on a starting character than a possible profession skill. Where you came from, what type of environment, your education, and other things do affect who you are, and this ned to be implemented.
This is going to be tricky, because "background" is such a vague term. Burning Wheel is about the only system that makes background really relevant, but remaking the Livepaths system is likely well beyond your plans.

You could try to enforce various mechanical parts of a background on the character sheet (forcing them to take on a rival, giving everyone automatic contacts) but doing so tends to force all characters towards a specific theme, and likely works best if you are trying to encourage a specific playstyle.


10.) Roleplaying should be encouraged and rewarded instead of a rare side affect of playing a combat simulator. The system will not be focused on solely combat, and therefore a character needs to be an actual person, someone the player cares about and knows well.
Determine what roleplaying you want to encourage, and then give the characters bonuses for doing so. One idea I had for D&D alignment was to change it to two axes, one with Good-Neutral-Evil and one with Lawful-Unaligned-Chaotic. The player selects their alignment, and every time they play their character to their alignment (but otherwise against their good interest) the character earns an Action Point, usable for bonuses, extra actions, or whatever else. The idea, of course, is not to force them to play a certain way, but to encourage them and give them good reason to do so.

The "stick" shouldn't always be avoided, although it does create slightly different gameplay. I believe Paranoid and Call of Cthulhu are some good games that do punish characters for acting "inappropriately", and do so well. I haven't played them, though, so I may be off.


Yeah, you're the one who told me about it :-) Remember this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11756940#post11756940
Actually, I'm not. :smallbiggrin: It's good to see you're still interested, though. I hope all that helps a bit.

[viking vince]

I think you'll have to decide what is more important to you - simplicity, or realism? You may not be able to get both.

If you decide realism, I second the numerous recommendations for GURPS

[Xechon]

Abilities (or the system's equilivant) are largely arbitrary and generally come from what is important in the system. There are a lot of systems that only use something similar to Mind-Body-Spirit, and work just fine. One of the more unusual system I've heard of uses Legs, Feet, Arms, Hands, Torso, Face, and Mind (possibly one or two more). The idea was that whichever body part is involved in the action is what is tested. Legs are for running, feet are for balance, arms are for swinging swords, face is for perception and social rolls, and so on.

One system that I (partially) made up only used Strength, Agility, Constitution, and Perception. There were no mental stats, because it was assumed that any thinking that the character needed to do would be done by the player. (There were static Knowledged that determined if the character knew a fact, but nothing rolled.) There are no social skills, because it would be assumed that the player would need to come up with some convincing way to influence NPCs.

This is why I was focused on how combat would play out and what else the players would do at the game table, while ignoring anything you said about Attributes: the necessary Attributes will come from what is necessary in play. It may be that you need four physical attributes, or it may be that one works just as well. It is hard to say at this point if, say, a difference between Acumen and Mentality is a critical part of the system, or if it is just two more pointless stats.

You see, I want this system to be able to cover anything, so that's why I try to diversify the ability score system. I have actually thought about the only physical stat system, but one of my friends taught me good on this one: You are supposed to make a character that is not like you, and what if you want him to do something you can't on the mental side? Also, Acumen is a word that more accurately explains D&D's version of Wisdom, that was just fixing a misnomer there. Mentality is your character's stability of mind, and will help determine your character's sanity, morale, ego, ect., because a lot of players wont roleplay the effects of what they do. This is pretty much another sanity variant.


Hit Points is both a shorthand abstraction and a way to allow characters to survive threats that might otherwise kill them. Characters in systems with HP are far, far more likely to go out and do things than characters in systems with wounds or something similar. The latter are more likely to launch an overwhelming attack only once, or overlevel and "slum" against less dangerous opponents.

Trying to take characters from one system (high risk-takers) and put them in another (wound system) doesn't work. It's not just that it isn't pretty; it just doesn't work. You end up with either dead characters or characters switching their playstyle to the new system; you don't get exceptional risk-takers who are still aware of their wound limitations. As the old saying goes, "There are old soldiers, and there are bold soldiers, but there are no old, bold soldiers."

If you are getting a lot of protests against the wound system, this is likely the reason. Players don't run off to fight dragons that will casually eat their characters every time; they won't run off into fights where they can casually get their characters killed every time either. If you're thinking D&D with Wounds, you'll either get angry players or something very not-D&D. (Note that I mean wounds as "penality for every hit" rather than 3e's alternate "mini-HP" wounds system.)

If you want to change HP - which probably needs a change of some form - here are a few ideas.

Go back to the original idea behind HP from wargames: They being Hit Points. As in, they were the number of times a character could be hit before death. Most heroic characters would have 6-10 HP (perhaps half their CON, for D&D). Getting successfully hit by a weapon would lose 1 HP. A critical would perhaps be 2 HP.

Change HP into something other than "Hit Points". This is the idea behind a 'Parry Endurance' from earlier; it basically functions similar to HP, although you are wearing down the opponent's "endurance to parrying blows" rather than Hit Points.

Wounds/injuries/whatever that grant -1 per injury to the relevant statistic, or all rolls. Breaks/destroys that completely render the limb inoperatable.

If you want realistic death mechanics, then do something that may seem counterintuitive and not allow them to die from combat. No, seriously, most people do not drop dead from a sword stab or gunshot wound. About the only things that would reasonably kill a person would be: brain damage/destruction, heart damage, spinal cord damage, bleeding out, suffocation, or mass organ failure. The last one could probably be covered by bleeding out, too. This also solves the problem of "What do we do with fallen opponents?" (They will bleed out and die.) "How do I keep an ally alive?" (Get them relevant medical support.) or "Why do I instantly die from being stabbed in the lung in Medievia, but in Futuristica I can survive for treatment?" (You don't die immediately in either, but Medievia doesn't have a way of saving your lung before inevitable death.)

Okay, so I haven't been too terribly clear about the Ability Damage system. Here, let's see if this helps:

1.) Damage will be taken to ability scores, usually Constitution damage unless the damaging creature uses a special move to hurt the others directly, which causes them more damage than if they hit Con, but it will be harder to hit, and it wont damage anything else. (ex: an orc hits with an axe, after mods listed below, deals damage to Con, which slightly damages the other physical stats. But another orc wants to make sure a prisoner can't run, so he cuts muscles/tendons on the leg to directly damage his agility)
2.) Mental Damage will be taken if (A) a character is bashed on the head, as a special action, (B) magic does it, which will be put in later, or (C), the stat is attacked directly, as in disfiguring to reduce cha, seeing the murder of a friend for Mentality, etc.
3.) Armor will give a bonus not only to blocking attacks outright, but also reducing damage on a successful hit. So, armor now also provides some DR.
4.) There will be a dodge skill also, and so characters get better at avoiding attacks with experience. This way, while a character who is sane shouldn't intentionally do this, it IS possible, and not that hard, to survive close combat with it, the same way heroes in mythology do: don't get hit.

This system adds the realism of battle damage actually affecting you, allows for characters to survive direct combat, but encourages smart, tactical combat, so a character can't run around in a camp of hostile drow and come out unscratched without even trying. And to "slum" against low-level creatures would be the DM's fault for failing to intervene; he can make up an NPC to stop rampaging PC's.

I've seen a lot of the systems to mentioned before, and I threw them all down. There needs a way for there to be a one-hit kill, because it makes sense. I understand players dont want their characters to die, and that's actually one of my goals, but the system I propose is one way to work with both of those.

Also, to clarify, when I say that the people die, I actually mean mortally wounded, unless an insane critical leads to a severed head, or the enemies go around and slit throats after the battle, which is just not something they do very often. And I am actually revising Unearthed Arcana's Death and Dying variant for this use. Also, I want to work around that silly "automatically falls unconscious" rule; some are unlucky enough to bleed to death consciously.



You might want to look at Mutants and Masterminds for a good way to combine point-buy and levels. It allows maximum power caps (determined by level) to prevent gross minmaxing, while allowing you to determine the rough challange level of the group.

If you throw out levels completely, then look at how Shadowrun/World of Darkness/GURPS handles challanges. You will notice that these games tend towards the "You get XP for completing the mission" style rewards, and that random fights usually don't grant any XP.

I tried to find some M&M, but it all costs cash, and I don't think it would be that helpful to me. Plus, I'm cheap. I do want to forget about levels, and I am looking at GURPS at the moment. My friend, however, does not have world of darkness, but his dad might, next time he visits his I'll find out. I have always, and probably will always, give XP for missions, and a reduced amount for encounters. However, I think I am going to move almost everything into the skill system, and everything else into a stat system. That means experience by use, not by missions or encounters, and DM's will have to think of more creative rewards than "boom, free XP everywhere". This also means class abilities will be moved into the skill system, so evasion would be in dodge with a certain level, dr becomes toughness, ect., and so do feats. Magic will be their own skills, such as "Sorcery" (uses true sorcery system) or "Wizardry" (uses 3.5 style magic). The levels for these skills (probably stats instead, I'll explain later) will be your "caster level".

Okay, I will now pause to explain the difference between stats, skills, and abilities.

Skills: Things your character can do that can be affected by luck, most things fall under this category. Luck will be implemented in a 3d6 roll, where you can get up to a +4 or as low as a -4. See my wiki for details.

Stats: Pretty much skills that don't get rolled for. Magic is a big one, but sanity, morale, ego, stamina, and other things also fall into this category.

Abilities: Base ability scores, affect both your skills and stats. Pretty basic.

Now back to the main feature:


I'll be honest, I think that d20 has an absolutly horrendous skill system. It might be better if you switch it over to XP-point-buy, but as it is it is exceptionally clunky and not worth much.

Skills are worth everything, because you could say everything your character can do is a skill. Actually, in 3.5, everything that isn't combat is a skill, and the things they forgot to put into skills are ability checks. If you think the skill system is bad, please explain why, and I will take that into consideration. However, the skill system in my "new D&D" is already different, as it uses a level base instead of ranks, and it is leveled up by use, not randomly.


I would recommend making 'combat maneuvers' and 'tactical combat' part of a revision of the core fighting mechanics, rather than class abilities or skills to buy. That is, rather than having Improved Disarm and special weapons and maneuvers for disarming foes, just make the basic disarm mechanics less stupid.

I really need to work on my communication skills. They will not be to buy, all can use them. Some special, monkish maneuvers will require ranks in the skill "Martial Arts", but yeah, otherwise all can use them, and if I put them in the skill system, even focus on them if they want.



This, I am afraid, will simply not happen. d20 + random bonus simply isn't realistic, and some of your other goals (climatic combat clashes, XP-point-buy) may come into direct conflict with that.

Heck, let me restate that: everything you design will come in direct conflict with this goal. You will constantly be balancing "Do I make this more realistic?" with "Do I make this less clunky?" I mean, look at the 'realistic' death mechanics I mentioned, above. On the one hand, it probably isn't that realistic, as it technically means characters can wander around while suffocating or with their heart hanging out of their chest. On the other hand, it can be too clunky because it basically requires DM adjudication to determine when any character is dead, and would likely extend over several pages detailing how long it takes an unconcious person to bleed out, to die from a punctured lung, to die from a damaged liver, etc.

Let me restate that: I'm not going to go as crazy as to spend that much attention to detail, but I do want a system to work. Rolling a die to determine how long it takes for your character to bleed out, but not a textbook on it. Also, if the character is alive and suffocating or has organs hanging out, hes not going to be moving much at all.


I would recommend making a specific magic system in mind, as opposed to one that is supposed to apply to "all" magic settings. That is, you could have an Element-Bending, or a Vancian Magic, or a Final Fantasy system, or Tolkien magic, or Lovecraft.

One problem that 3.5e had was to "attempt it all", and what happened was that nothing else was as good. Different magic systems helps to solve the problem by giving each single system limits, along with a distinct focus in what it will and will not allow. Multiple different (and flavorful) magic systems will also help with making them distinct, as opposed to just "at-will-arcane" Warlocks and "know-full-spelllist" Beguilers and "PP-magic" Psions.

Even if you just use one system, it will help set your system apart. A general fantasy D&D with an Airbending magic system would be more interesting than a general fantasy D&D with just MP replacing spell slots.

My favorite one so far, by far, is True sorcery, or at least some variants of it. I'll get you a more accurate description of the system later. However, I do want there to be multiple systems for magic, and I defiantly dont want them working the same way. I haven't done much with magic recently because I'm trying to work on core concepts and rules right now, but I'll eventually get that all out.



You will probably want to keep firearms and such in mind when creating the rules, specifically stuff like how armor works. How overpowering Technology is will largely be determined by how overpowering large amounts of money are in the system; if superior equipment can make up of surpass levels of skill, then superior technology will likely do the same.

Yep, I'm trying to keep guns, swords, and lasers all in mind with this. Money will obviously be more and more powerful as the tech level increases, but there will be limitations, as in a normal, everyday civilian wont drive a mecha to work, or take a vacation on his own, personal battle space ship.


This is going to be tricky, because "background" is such a vague term. Burning Wheel is about the only system that makes background really relevant, but remaking the Livepaths system is likely well beyond your plans.

You could try to enforce various mechanical parts of a background on the character sheet (forcing them to take on a rival, giving everyone automatic contacts) but doing so tends to force all characters towards a specific theme, and likely works best if you are trying to encourage a specific playstyle.

Nothing is too complicated to be beyond my plans. That said, I do not want to streamline a player's background at all. If I wanted that, I could just use a variant of FATE's background system and be done with it. Yeah, it might be difficult, but I'm not planning on making everything, nor can I even hope to. There will likely be a mechanic for specific aspects of the person's background, and the DM must okay it.



Determine what roleplaying you want to encourage, and then give the characters bonuses for doing so. One idea I had for D&D alignment was to change it to two axes, one with Good-Neutral-Evil and one with Lawful-Unaligned-Chaotic. The player selects their alignment, and every time they play their character to their alignment (but otherwise against their good interest) the character earns an Action Point, usable for bonuses, extra actions, or whatever else. The idea, of course, is not to force them to play a certain way, but to encourage them and give them good reason to do so.

The "stick" shouldn't always be avoided, although it does create slightly different gameplay. I believe Paranoid and Call of Cthulhu are some good games that do punish characters for acting "inappropriately", and do so well. I haven't played them, though, so I may be off.

Isn't the axes the same as 3.5, other than changing one neutral to the synonym unaligned? However, I have seen the action points for roleplaying system many times before, and I am growing towards it. I'm still not in love with the character's encouragement being a numerical bonus, but it seems an affective method. I don't think I'll be using the 7 virtues and vices anymore, because I realized how much that would hurt villans and help heroes. Even though the hero is supposed to win, its no fun if its not a challenge. Also, I dont think I'll be punishing misbehaving PC's, because it's always more fun for the DM if he gets to be creative ;-)


I think you'll have to decide what is more important to you - simplicity, or realism? You may not be able to get both.

If you decide realism, I second the numerous recommendations for GURPS

Realism, definitely, but I feel the shadow of Occam's Razor looming over this project right now. And I've looked at more of GURPS, and it's actually pretty good material.

[lothofkalroth]

I completely understand where you're coming from. I had almost the exact same problems with DnD, and it's what inspired me to create 2d6, my version of a simpler DnD. I went a little further and streamlined it a bit more, but let me give you a few really valuable pieces of advice:

1. If you want realistic rolls, don't use a single die. Use at least two. If you want a d20 range, go with 2d10 instead. It'll give you the same basic spread (although you can't roll a 1 anymore), but it'll skew your results towards an 11 instead of having critical failure be just as possible as normal average success.

for instance:

chance of rolling an 11 on a d20: 5% (1/20)
chance of rolling a 2 on a d20: 5% (1/20)

chance of rolling an 11 on 2d10: 10% (10/100)
chance of rolling a 2 on 2d10: 1% (1/100)

it makes for a whole bunch of average rolls with a few extremes, just like real life.

2. If you want more realistic health, don't have it grow unless someone raises the stat that determines it. If you're going to give any feats that boost health, make them few and far between. The difference between a good fighter and a bad fighter in the real world has less to do with stamina and more to do with combat ability.

3. For the love of whatever deity you do or do not pay homage to: USE FLOATING STATS. They make so much more sense than fixed stats. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check out my system in my sig, or look into white wolf games. Trust me on this one, it makes everythign easier for both the players and the GM.

If you need any more help, feel free to PM me!

[Xechon]

I completely understand where you're coming from. I had almost the exact same problems with DnD, and it's what inspired me to create 2d6, my version of a simpler DnD. I went a little further and streamlined it a bit more, but let me give you a few really valuable pieces of advice:

1. If you want realistic rolls, don't use a single die. Use at least two. If you want a d20 range, go with 2d10 instead. It'll give you the same basic spread (although you can't roll a 1 anymore), but it'll skew your results towards an 11 instead of having critical failure be just as possible as normal average success.

for instance:

chance of rolling an 11 on a d20: 5% (1/20)
chance of rolling a 2 on a d20: 5% (1/20)

chance of rolling an 11 on 2d10: 10% (10/100)
chance of rolling a 2 on 2d10: 1% (1/100)

it makes for a whole bunch of average rolls with a few extremes, just like real life.

2. If you want more realistic health, don't have it grow unless someone raises the stat that determines it. If you're going to give any feats that boost health, make them few and far between. The difference between a good fighter and a bad fighter in the real world has less to do with stamina and more to do with combat ability.

3. For the love of whatever deity you do or do not pay homage to: USE FLOATING STATS. They make so much more sense than fixed stats. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check out my system in my sig, or look into white wolf games. Trust me on this one, it makes everythign easier for both the players and the GM.

If you need any more help, feel free to PM me!

1+2, I've already covered. 3d6, 10 and 11=0, 9-8=-1, 12-13=1, and like that until the top numbers are +/-4. and those are the only ones, so I might change them to a critical win/fail mechanic instead. And ability scores increase when you increase them, I might get rid of increasing them or just make a crawlingly slow level mechanic with a wear-down rate, but that should be so slow it wouldn't matter anyway, might just skip it.

3, however, is new to me, and I like it, if I have it right. It essentially means that depending on your situation, different ability scores might affect a skill. I've been calculating some multiple-influence skill ideas for a while, but it all seemed so broken, but this one is so simple and works so well. Thanks :smallbiggrin:

Also, I took a good tour of your system, and frankly, it's amazing. It literatly challenges systems like fudge, fate, and gurps, while almost everything is better than D&D right now. You did a good job on that, but none of the promised pics ;-). Anywho, it doesn't have exactly what I'm striving for, but it just made my system that much better.

[lothofkalroth]

1+2, I've already covered. 3d6, 10 and 11=0, 9-8=-1, 12-13=1, and like that until the top numbers are +/-4. and those are the only ones, so I might change them to a critical win/fail mechanic instead. And ability scores increase when you increase them, I might get rid of increasing them or just make a crawlingly slow level mechanic with a wear-down rate, but that should be so slow it wouldn't matter anyway, might just skip it.

3, however, is new to me, and I like it, if I have it right. It essentially means that depending on your situation, different ability scores might affect a skill. I've been calculating some multiple-influence skill ideas for a while, but it all seemed so broken, but this one is so simple and works so well. Thanks :smallbiggrin:

Also, I took a good tour of your system, and frankly, it's amazing. It literatly challenges systems like fudge, fate, and gurps, while almost everything is better than D&D right now. You did a good job on that, but none of the promised pics ;-). Anywho, it doesn't have exactly what I'm striving for, but it just made my system that much better.

Glad I could help, and also glad you like 2d6. Tell your friends, and keep us all updated as to how this project goes, because it's the most interesting up-and-coming system i've seen. : )

[Xechon]

Okay, I read over all of the systems that I could get for free, and have a few new ideas. I'm tracking my thoughts mainly on my wiki now, and I will adress them all here eventually, that just gives me time to look it over and decide it's importantness. And yes, I know that's not a word. However, I am juggling ideas all over the place, and would like to know from you this: What should I do first? I've gotten many comments about how bad of an idea starting with ability scores is, so what is the best place to start? All of you probably have more experience at this type of stuff than I do, so I'd really appreciate your advice.

[Xechon]

So no? Was it something I said?

Well, I've got a bit from just juggling ideas, and more to add later. Here's a bit for analyzation if anyone's still here:

1.) Core mechanic is roll 4d6 and then use the following equation to determine the modifier to add to your skill roll. The equation is T/2-7=M, where T= the total sum of your 4d6 roll and M= the modifier you add to your skill roll. What this fixes: the equal chances of rolling any number, not averaging anything; lessens the effectiveness of luck, makIng everything more skill, less chance; let's the dice roll negative numbers, so that it can reflect bad luck (I know a low roll on the d20 usually indicates that, but since I already got rid of negatives on ability scores, I feel I owe some)

2.) Ability Scores and Stats. 4d6, drop the lowest for all ability scores, no modifiers. The ability scores are constitution, agility, dexterity, strength, intelligence, acumen, charisma, and health of the mind (need a better word for that last one). The leading ability for the physical ones is con and health of mind for mental. When these get hurt it affects the abilities they govern. With special attacks you can injure a lesser ability score directly, and it deals more damage than it would usually, but only affects that ability score. Conditions will make it so it pretty much disables the ability score when targeted directly (like cutting a tendon). A certain score or lower would disable certain things, mechanics for everything is still in progress, but I'll probably wait to do this until after skills. Once damaged, they heal according to how high the score is, but much slower than D&D, in favor of realism, but medical attention, knowledge of first aid, magic, superior technology, etc. can heal faster. Sometimes, with a low enough score, some of this might be necessary, and if it is really low, you may need to get immediate help or you will lose health every night instead of gain. Mechanics like that. Stats are scores that aren't ability scores and aren't skills. Some examples are stamina, awareness, sanity, ego, morale, etc. What this fixes: well, overall, it paves the way for my modified skill system, which should fix a lot and probably make all the hardcore D&D nerds hate me; it also makes "HP" have an affect on your character's condition, and removes that pretty progression per level system and substitutes realism; also helps with healing rules, but I haven't looked at the death and dying sytsem yet (not the UA one, I've read that), so expect something crazy there.

3.) Skills. The new levels! Everything you do is a skill, and while you don't have to roll for mundane uses under mundane conditions, these are used extremely often. Uses core mechanic, adds appropriate ability score depending on the specific situation you are in. These level up as you use them, and that level is your "rank" in the skill. You must be challenged in a skill to train it, do your characters will only be as powerful as your game. What this fixes: Multiclassing; Sponaneous bursts of improvement (aka: levels); balancing feats, they're now just included in a certain level of a skill; keeping track of XP; and much more. This is my fix-most system.

4.) Conflicts. These will take place in "turns", which is a group of interacting peoples all acting together in 1 round. I'll explain this in more detail on my next post, I'm still kind of working with it. Basically, a person who is swinging a sword has x str, and so can swing sword y fast, and p2 is defending,etc. all actions will be declared at the beginning of the round to prevent messiness.

So there is more to come, please comment if you have any ideas or critisim.

[Knaight]

1.) Core mechanic is roll 4d6 and then use the following equation to determine the modifier to add to your skill roll. The equation is T/2-7=M, where T= the total sum of your 4d6 roll and M= the modifier you add to your skill roll. What this fixes: the equal chances of rolling any number, not averaging anything; lessens the effectiveness of luck, makIng everything more skill, less chance; let's the dice roll negative numbers, so that it can reflect bad luck (I know a low roll on the d20 usually indicates that, but since I already got rid of negatives on ability scores, I feel I owe some)

This is really clumsy. Basically, it produces a range from -2 to 5, with a curve. There are much better ways to handle this. For one, if you change the difficulties, 1-8 and -2 to 5 are basically synonymous. So, roll 3 eight sided dice, pick the median, that one is the result is a similar mechanic, which retains a curve (a different one, true, but probably close enough) and is far faster to implement.

[cherez]

What should I do first?

First is to look at a lot of systems, figure out what choices they made and how it affected the playstyle. You mentioned reading a lot of free systems. List, please? More is always better, and we might be able to throw more your way.

Second, you should figure out how you want the game to play. Every other decision should be trying to fulfill this ideal. I'm not quite sure what you want this game to be, so it's hard to give you useful refinements to your rules.

As for what you've proposed:

1. I'm always little nervous when I see "use the following equation" for something you'll do with every check. My play group often has breaks for calculus or to write a computer simulation of the game state, but even we prefer every bit of simplicity we can get. I'd suggest using FUDGE's system over this, it produces a very similar distribution, but will be more intuitive to players.

2. Here is a point where I'm not quite sure what you want. Rolling abilities seems to me more suited for a fast and loose game that loves one-shot adventures, while the rest of your system seems more simulationist. Your health system sounds fast and deadly, if I'm understanding it, as taking damage would make you less able to protect yourself. Not wrong, but that will drastically shape the gameplay, so be certain that's what you want.

3. I love skill systems, but some of the things you say you're fixing confuse me. It sounds like you've renamed "balancing feats" to "balancing skills" and declared "balancing feats" is solved. You say you solved xp, but I'm not certain I understand what your alternative is. I'm also not sure that the existence of levels is a problem, but that depends on what kind of game you want.

4. Simultaneous turns? Sounds like it could be complicated, but I have little experience with them. Need more details to say much.


Good luck with the system.

[Xechon]

This is really clumsy. Basically, it produces a range from -2 to 5, with a curve. There are much better ways to handle this. For one, if you change the difficulties, 1-8 and -2 to 5 are basically synonymous. So, roll 3 eight sided dice, pick the median, that one is the result is a similar mechanic, which retains a curve (a different one, true, but probably close enough) and is far faster to implement.

Um, last time I checked, 4d6 gives a range of 4 to 24, and with that equation it would be -5 to 5. And I want my system to run on household dice, so d6's all the way if possible.


1. I'm always little nervous when I see "use the following equation" for something you'll do with every check. My play group often has breaks for calculus or to write a computer simulation of the game state, but even we prefer every bit of simplicity we can get. I'd suggest using FUDGE's system over this, it produces a very similar distribution, but will be more intuitive to players.

Don't worry, the tables for the possible rolls will be on every charactersheet and DM helper, so time won't be an issue there. Also, the table is simple ranges, and people should pick up on this faster than ability modifiers in d&d, just because this is used more often. The equation is just for the sake of programming the system (yes I will use equations, many of them) and me not having to make a table right now. Fudge is what inspired this idea, but I wanted -5 to 5 instead of 4s, and I didn't like how everything was determined, with the different colored dice and all. So this is my solution.


2. Here is a point where I'm not quite sure what you want. Rolling abilities seems to me more suited for a fast and loose game that loves one-shot adventures, while the rest of your system seems more simulationist. Your health system sounds fast and deadly, if I'm understanding it, as taking damage would make you less able to protect yourself. Not wrong, but that will drastically shape the gameplay, so be certain that's what you want.

Yeah, I kinda just stole 3.5e's system for it, because of lack of ideas for this one. I do want fast and deadly, and am completely open to suggestions on how to upgrade that.



3. I love skill systems, but some of the things you say you're fixing confuse me. It sounds like you've renamed "balancing feats" to "balancing skills" and declared "balancing feats" is solved. You say you solved xp, but I'm not certain I understand what your alternative is. I'm also not sure that the existence of levels is a problem, but that depends on what kind of game you want.


Yes, I did rename balancing feats to balancing skills, and I'm so proud of it. Confused? Well, yes, the problem is still there, however, it becomes the same as balancing skills and in the end I have less to do! XP is annoying, and requires spontaneous bursts of overall improvement (levels). By putting everything into the skill system and making skills "level" with use (not XP, more like the the burning wheels system, where each level requires a certain amount of succeses at a certain DC or a different number of failures at the same DC). I hope that clarifies.


4. Simultaneous turns? Sounds like it could be complicated, but I have little experience with them. Need more details to say much.

Well, you're in luck. No numbers yet, but read on...



First is to look at a lot of systems, figure out what choices they made and how it affected the playstyle. You mentioned reading a lot of free systems. List, please? More is always better, and we might be able to throw more your way.

Second, you should figure out how you want the game to play. Every other decision should be trying to fulfill this ideal. I'm not quite sure what you want this game to be, so it's hard to give you useful refinements to your rules.


Systems I've read:
d20
3.5
4.0
d6
GURPS (Lite)
FATE
FUDGE
Savage Worlds
2d6 (By lothofkalroth)
Obsidian (By YouLostMe)

I also have some ideas from Burning Wheels and World of Darkness from erikun.

Overall my goal is realism, then stir in the fantasy. I want a game that kind of forces tactical combat (if you have combat), encourages roleplaying, is fully customizable, and still lets players play characters with amazing abilities.

And now, for a little less-vague (hopefully) description of conflicts:

A conflict is when two or more people/groups oppose each other in any action. Everyone, at the beginning of their turn, declares their actions and targets. A round is 5 seconds long, and any action that will take longer than this occurs in the appropriate round. Opposing peoples all act in the same turn, which is the same as a round, except everyone acts in one round, and only opposing peoples act in a turn. Ex.) Fighter A swings sword at fighter B. To block, fighter A must be able to react quick enough and raise his shield/sword fast enough to block it, and a certain strength to keep hold of it, with a penalty if he dosen't have a good grip on it. Both of these actions take up the same amount of time in the turn, but they both take up time, unlike the D&D system.

Indirect opposers act independently in a round unless faced with other indirect opposers, which makes a direct opposition. This means if, say, an archer is hiding in the trees out of the battle, he can shoot at as many people from whatever groups he wants, as long as he can shoot that far and has line of sight and effect.

This presents the problem of direct to indirect. What if a fighter charges the archer? Well, the fighter approaches the archer, but he fires an arrow at the fighter. If the charge isn't interrupted, then the fighter reaches the archer, and if the archer was preparing another shot by time the fighter swings his sword, then the shot is interrupted.

Also, just as a note, strength scores will be converted into pounds of force, entered in many equations of speed, force, etc. The character will swing at speed x, and the other person must match that speed over the same distance with item to block, etc. It will be calc heavy, but this is just what I will use for my first draft, after some playtesting and theory gets done, I will round it all out. Also, everyone is treated as having the power attack feat. Skills will also affect speed, damage, etc., because practice matters, strength isn't everything. These things will be based off those skills, not STR.

When a conflict arises, use the following steps to resolve it:
1.) Determine the appropriate skill for each creature and it's role in the conflict.
2.) Determine if the use is possible (consider stats and the situation and surroundings)
3.) Roll for chance mod, then compare skill checks. Usually, the higher roll wins, but there are certain circumstances where you may just have to achieve a certain amount to succeed.
4.) The GM determines the results and describes what happens.

The above content uses combat for an example, however those rules apply to every conflict.

[Knaight]

Um, last time I checked, 4d6 gives a range of 4 to 24, and with that equation it would be -5 to 5. And I want my system to run on household dice, so d6's all the way if possible.

Sorry, there was a typo above that I ran with a bit too long instead of checking the math (note to self: do not do even basic math when on the verge of sleep). That said, -5 to 5 is really easy to achieve with d6. d6-d6 gets that result, and it inherently comes with a curve built in. So does 2d6-7. In both of these systems, 0 has a 1/6 chance of occuring, both -5 and 5 a 1/36. d6-d6 is probably preferable, but either works, and both work better than 4d6/2-7.

[nihil8r]

Alright then, lets talk fantasy. There are a handful of really impressive books in a handful of systems that are basically obligatory reading to work within the genre - moreover, each and every one of these is more realistic than D&D:

Burning Wheel: Burning Wheel does low magic character centered Tolkien fantasy, and basically nothing else. However, it does a very good job, and its Belief Instict Trait system is somewhat similar to Aspects, and provide incentive to role play. Its long, its rules heavy, it isn't necessarily intuitive to grok, but it simply must be looked at.

Reign: Reign uses the unique ORE dice system, which is in and of itself a clever mechanic worth looking at. However, it also has a brutal health system that still uses hit points, it makes armor and such count, it has tactical combat, and it handles character level stuff well. Then there is the icing on the cake - Reign has mechanics built to handle organizations, and can cover everything from international politics to gang turf wars with them.

GURPS Fantasy: Its GURPS. GURPS is essentially the generic system, with everything else being far less known, its crunchy, its detailed, and it uses a hit point system that you might be interested in.

Fudge Fantasy: The core Fudge rules are free, but this isn't. Its an example of a rules light system, and i point to it mostly because of the whole unified trait ladder aspect, that is used for everything, and for its numerical scale mechanic (essentially, size categories are replaced by a logarithmic scale of real numbers. It seems like a mechanic you should take a look at).

Savage Worlds: I'll say this upfront - I don't like this game. However, it does have its own framework, and its a big enough game that it probably requires a look at it. Plus, its only ten dollars, so if you don't like it it isn't a big deal.

some of these look cool, thanks for the info :)

[Xechon]

Sorry, there was a typo above that I ran with a bit too long instead of checking the math (note to self: do not do even basic math when on the verge of sleep). That said, -5 to 5 is really easy to achieve with d6. d6-d6 gets that result, and it inherently comes with a curve built in. So does 2d6-7. In both of these systems, 0 has a 1/6 chance of occuring, both -5 and 5 a 1/36. d6-d6 is probably preferable, but either works, and both work better than 4d6/2-7.

You are right abou that. A d6-d6 would give the same range, and still have a good curve. Thanks for that. And since d6's are so common finding (or making) a pair of different colored dice shouldn't be a problem.

Something I have run into is this: Skills should be everything, so they should be incredibly specific, but if you are good at using a longsword, a shortsword would be different enough to warrant another skill, but some experience with the longsword would translate to the other. I'm thinking skill synergies, but I don't know if theres a better way to take it.

Also, would it be too much to balance skills by how many successes at a DC (dependent on level of skill) it takes to level it up? It sounds like a logical way to do it, but could require too much bookkeeping to be implemented, and might make it harder for the GM and/or players to create their own.

Right now I am working on a list of skills to be used, I still need recommendations for a better ability score system if anyone has one, and I should be able to start working on the actions/per time depending on skills/ability scores (most likely the former, only rare of the latter if any), but damage will take a lot of looking into. If I forgot to mention this, I am using real world equations of force/momentum/speed/energy/etc. to plan this all out, so it will be long and tedious to play, but I'm gonna take averages and round it all out, so it becomes playable. Then I need to find out human damage limit/toughness/speed/reflexes/etc. and start on the actual damage. And then I'll start to make the fantasy.

[Knaight]

Something I have run into is this: Skills should be everything, so they should be incredibly specific, but if you are good at using a longsword, a shortsword would be different enough to warrant another skill, but some experience with the longsword would translate to the other. I'm thinking skill synergies, but I don't know if theres a better way to take it.

This doesn't follow. Skills can be the critical piece of the system without having an abundance of them. Chronica Feudalis, for instance, is a skill based system with only 20 skills, and it runs quite smoothly in a variety of situations. The importance of skills within a system and the quantity of skills within a system are entirely separate scales.

As for skill specificity and skill relations, there are a few options. The big ones:

GURPS: All skills default to an attribute plus an ease modifier. This default can be changed to a default of another skill with a penalty for use. For instance, Broadsword 18 might produce Short Sword 16 and Spear 13.

Cortex: Skills gradually grow in specificity. Really, the basics of, say, club and sword use are pretty similar, so you might have Swung Weapons, up until 1d6 (Cortex uses a step die system, where skills are rated as a die, ranging from d2-d12 in most cases). However, narrower skills can grow beyond that, so you might have Swung Weapons 1d6, Sword 1d10. Or, if you use narrower skills, Sword 1d6 Arming Sword 1d8. So on and so forth.

[Xechon]

This doesn't follow. Skills can be the critical piece of the system without having an abundance of them. Chronica Feudalis, for instance, is a skill based system with only 20 skills, and it runs quite smoothly in a variety of situations. The importance of skills within a system and the quantity of skills within a system are entirely separate scales.

As for skill specificity and skill relations, there are a few options. The big ones:

GURPS: All skills default to an attribute plus an ease modifier. This default can be changed to a default of another skill with a penalty for use. For instance, Broadsword 18 might produce Short Sword 16 and Spear 13.

Cortex: Skills gradually grow in specificity. Really, the basics of, say, club and sword use are pretty similar, so you might have Swung Weapons, up until 1d6 (Cortex uses a step die system, where skills are rated as a die, ranging from d2-d12 in most cases). However, narrower skills can grow beyond that, so you might have Swung Weapons 1d6, Sword 1d10. Or, if you use narrower skills, Sword 1d6 Arming Sword 1d8. So on and so forth.

Yeah, read GURPS, don't really like that skill system. But Cortex sounds interesting. Downloaded and reading.

Okay, so I've decided to trail onto combat theory for a bit, and to allow for all forms of combat to be played, I want to make a system that mimics real life. I'm not dealing with damage right now, but pretty much I am trying to generalize t speed object a with a mass of b can achieve over a distance assumed to be the same for all. I also want this for ranged weapons, and reaction time. I found quite a few wikipedia pages concerning this, but there are letter descriptions missing all over the place in there. If any of you know a good place or forum to find these missing parts of the equation please tell me.

[Knaight]

Yeah, read GURPS, don't really like that skill system. But Cortex sounds interesting. Downloaded and reading.

I would consider Cortex the far more elegant of the two. Dealing with GURPS's skill system is often a pain in the rear.

[Pyromancer999]

BESM is pretty good.

Still, this thread is slightly confusing. It says "The Better D&D" as the thread title, but claims that the system you're trying to do isn't D&D. So, yeah. Confusing.

[Tael]

1. Buy GURPS
2. Realize that everything you have describes as what you want, it does.
3. Explain why you dislike the skill system
4. Live a happier life playing the kind of RPG that you like

Or I could just be having a fanboy moment. But seriously, GURPS is everything you describe as wanting, I don't understand why you don't like it.

[Xechon]

1. Buy GURPS
2. Realize that everything you have describes as what you want, it does.
3. Explain why you dislike the skill system
4. Live a happier life playing the kind of RPG that you like

Or I could just be having a fanboy moment. But seriously, GURPS is everything you describe as wanting, I don't understand why you don't like it.

1.) Really thinking about it
2.) No, sorry. GURPS is a really good system and will probably look like the base of my system, but it messed a few things up and doesn't go ino near as much detail as I want.
3.) I do not like the skill system because of the roll method (roll below your score, creative, but no thanks), I do not like how it gives defaults for almost everything but all other actions you cannot even attempt, and I do not like the method of spending character points to buy levels in skills. This, along with the simplified ability score system, greatly annoys me. I will be using a "character buy" system to build a personalized character at the beginning, but skills will level up by use, not points. And skills will be anything that can advance and isn't a stat or ability score. I still need a mechanic for fairly adjusting ability scores in play without levels (might just put it in character buy system and have GM award those from time to time, but I don't really like that resolve, and hope there is some better ideas for it).
4.) I might have my friend use GURPS instead of 3.5e for his campaign (he's still making it) just to get the feel, because I do aknowedge that it has a lot of good fixes in it. And I disliked GURPS at first because I saw the charactersheet, and it was so simplified. Before I learned of occam's razor I thought complexity was the best answer.

And sorry for the misleading title Pyromancer999, I just don't know what to call it. Name suggestions please!

[Xechon]

Hi, its been a while since my last post, I've been suffering from extreme pileups of homework and random events lately, but hopefully I'll be able to get my ideas up more often. Here is what I have currently for may system:


Ability Scores:

Constitution-Physical strengthand health
Agility-Speed and coordination
Intelligence-Mental strength and capacity
Mentality-Confidenceand stability of mind

Limits:

Stamina (Con)- Your energy, level of endurance
Morale (Men)- Your will to act

Ability scores represent your character's general abilities, but don't give the character any experience in skills with the ability's name after it. These instead allow the skills to be trained faster, especially at the beginning of their progression. To get ability scores, roll 2d6 for each one. This number is your base ability score, and is then modified by any traits you take at thebeginningof play that pertain to changing that specific ability score. Human limit is 20, although this can be modified slightly if you take a race. The lowest score possible is a 2, for a 1 represents that score is dying, and at 0 its dead. The consequences for dead ability scores is listed below:

0 Con- You have bled out, been sliced up, blasted/zapped, etc., to the point of death.

0 Agi- You are not dead, but all of your movement is impeded due to cut tendons, a magical lock, etc.

0 Int- You have died from destruction of your brain, by severe head impacts, magical overthrow, etc.

0 Men- You have withstood so much mentalassaultthat your soul leaves you to escape the pain.

A normal Human has ability scores of 7. The highest a human canachievewithout training is 12. A 12 in a base ability score represents incredible natural talent, and is very rare. A 2 represents some severe natural disability, and is just as rare as a 12.

Ability scores take damage when an attack targeting it manages to get past all of your defenses. Ability scores naturally regain at a rate of C-2 per (Max AS determines how fast). Skills are affected by ability score damage by 1/(Max AS) per point of ability damage.

Limits are stats that need to recharge after brought down from overexertion. Stamina affects Con, Agi, and Int, and represents being physically drained of energy, and Morale affects Con, Agi, and Men. Notice that both affect the physical abilities, and each affects opposite mental abilities. This is because it just makes sense, but it provides game balance in that physical abilities will be useful to everyone, with the mental stats less so.

Skills are everything you do, and therefore cannot all be included. Therefore, there is a template below. There will be many premade skills to encourage game balance, and all related existing skills should be taken into account when creating a new skill, for balance.

SKILL NAME
Fluff (Optional)
Difficulty
vs. skill
skill description, specific use, conditions and consequences of success/failure, and levels of success/failure.

Difficulty levels: Still developing. (Will have roots in the burning wheels skill system)

To make a skill check, roll 2d6 (make sure they look different, choose before play which one is positive and which is negative), then add them together. This should create a result from -5 to 5. Add this to your skill check to simulate chance. Compare your skill check against the opposing skill check or DC, and the higher one wins. If it wins by a margin of...


Traits:

Traits are another open-ended thing, so look, a new template:

TRAIT NAME
Fluff AP Cost
Type
Description of Trait and in-game modifiers and conditions
How a character might roleplay this trait.

AP is the points a character gets at creation to separate him/her from everyone else. AP Cost can be negative for negative effects.

Types:
Occupation- A Trait bundle that has to do with past or current jobs/education

Race- A Trait bundle according to your race. No race means you default to "human", but some GM's may require you to take a race.

Location- A Trait bundle based on the type of place you grew up in, or where you spent your time

Influence- A Trait bundle that gives stats to the way your parents raised you, the society you grew up in, and/or your peers.

Inherited- A Trait gotten the natural way; Genetics. This does NOT mean your parents must have this trait.

AP costs need a template

Need statistical range of Ability Scores (At least the two physical ones) for determining weight/speed of swinging/throwing object, and in turn round lengths and limit numbers.

Alignment based on this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163) (Needs tweaked)

Need special situations, fighting styles, and magic

Called Shots will work very similar to a PDF I found called files/Combat_Chart_bicolored.pdf (Which I think is GURPS, but called shots aren't in the lite version), with minor tweaks to fit in the system

Weapons and Armor will have at least a footing in this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202722



Things marked in red need worked on, and I'd love any ideas, advice, or content related to it :smallbiggrin:

Also, I'm horrible at names, but since mine is causing some confusion, what do you all think about FRS (Fantasy-Realism Simulator)?

[Mando Knight]

what do you all think about FRS (Fantasy-Realism Simulator)?
Not until I see a lot more realistic simulation here. So far, I'm just seeing abstractions, ones I'm not particularly fond of.

First hurdle I pose: your damage system vs reality. You want realism? The human body is complex. To reduce physical damage down from HP to the base ability score, you're oversimplifying things. A realism/simulator system would differentiate between hits to different parts of the body and modify your capabilities accordingly, and include things like localized flexibility and structural integrity.

Second: You conflate strength and constitution. Physical strength and constitution are related, yes, but only loosely... and not just for organics (where there's actually different muscle tissue for strength and stamina related tasks, and so forth), either. Structural materials are a more mathematically concrete means of showing the disconnect... a metal alloy can be strengthened, but at the same time its ability to resist crack growth decreases.

Third: related to the other first, but separate. You have very little granularity in your abilities. You'll need to deal with scaling issues (what's the constitution of a cat? A mouse? An ant?) at the very least, but for realism, you'll also need to handle marginal differences... the difference between 1 point of damage and 2 points of damage is severe here, and between 1 and 3 even more so: the difference can mean the difference of survival.

[Xechon]

Called shots will be part of the system, and the character takes damage to every attribute the called shot calls for. An example I listed above is head shots give some int damage, along with the regular con, and a leg shot would decrease agi. I guess I forgot to state that directly up there. I do see a problem with it though, being brain cells don't grow back and immobile legs won't affect acc other than position, but I guess I could just say; magic, then strain. Unless I get some major help, I don't think I'll be going into too many mechanics, but I will take them all into consideration when building the damage system.

Str is a skill. Con just mention strength to broaden the variety of skills it affects. That way, you have your specifics (legs, core, bicep, tricep, etc.) without over complicating the ability score system.

And yeah, I've been thinking about having a drastic range, but for realism I want things to be "hit once or twice, they're gone", with a high balance of defenses and soaking. None of this is set in stone, I dunno what range I should have it at, but I don't want a runescape combat feel. Now that ability scores don't directly affect skills, it would be a ton easier to increase the range, but to what? And remember, one of my goals is to keep it all d6's.

[Mando Knight]

Now that ability scores don't directly affect skills,Another issue. If I cut a tendon in your arm, your ability to wield a sword will suffer. In a skill based system where your ability scores do not directly affect skills, you need to account for this. Simplifying your model in one aspect will always cause a complication in another aspect. If you want to simulate reality, you will need to deal with all of the complications.
And remember, one of my goals is to keep it all d6's.
Which is an admirable goal, but not conducive to reality simulation. Without introducing buckets of dice and complicating the calculations, you'll have problems with probabilities that aren't within the range of your dice. A 2d6 roll can't accurately represent or distinguish between 85% and 90% probability, for example. Again, a simplification causes complications. You need a lot more rules and math, more varied dice, or a lower degree of accuracy. The first is bad for playability (except for computer games, etc. where you can dedicate a calculating engine to run the rules and math "under the hood" at speeds far beyond the likely level of complexity), the second requires physical resources, and the third is explicitly against the goal of creating a reality simulation system.

...Unless someone points me to a YKTTW or something that illustrates the issue and has a name for it, I'm going to call this the Law of Conservation of Complexity: a model's degree of accuracy is a function of its overall complexity. At a constant level of accuracy, a change in complexity in one part of the model requires an opposite change in complexity in another.

[Xechon]

Originally Posted by Xechon
Now that ability scores don't directly affect skills,

Another issue. If I cut a tendon in your arm, your ability to wield a sword will suffer. In a skill based system where your ability scores do not directly affect skills, you need to account for this. Simplifying your model in one aspect will always cause a complication in another aspect. If you want to simulate reality, you will need to deal with all of the complications.

Yes, yet another thing I forgot to mention. While ability scores don't add to skills automatically, when they are damaged they take away 1/(whatever the max ability score is) from the skill, so that at 1 they can only achieve the smallest of tasks. This is my main problem. I think, usually way to much and too far out to matter. But when I can write it down, it has escaped my thought.




Originally Posted by Xechon
And remember, one of my goals is to keep it all d6's.

Which is an admirable goal, but not conducive to reality simulation. Without introducing buckets of dice and complicating the calculations, you'll have problems with probabilities that aren't within the range of your dice. A 2d6 roll can't accurately represent or distinguish between 85% and 90% probability, for example. Again, a simplification causes complications. You need a lot more rules and math, more varied dice, or a lower degree of accuracy. The first is bad for playability (except for computer games, etc. where you can dedicate a calculating engine to run the rules and math "under the hood" at speeds far beyond the likely level of complexity), the second requires physical resources, and the third is explicitly against the goal of creating a reality simulation system.

...Unless someone points me to a YKTTW or something that illustrates the issue and has a name for it, I'm going to call this the Law of Conservation of Complexity: a model's degree of accuracy is a function of its overall complexity. At a constant level of accuracy, a change in complexity in one part of the model requires an opposite change in complexity in another.

You just made me very happy.

I originally set forth with this project to spend however long it took to compile every real-world equation into one system, then add luck and an optional fantasy pack, with options for every era. I wanted this system so precise that the military could run a situation through a computer with this on it 100 times and get the odds that it would succeed. Then I was told of Occam's Razor.

The simplest solution is usually the best, not because it's simple, just because it is. And I had quite a few epiphanies with that mindset. But I think I've forgotten to look for other options.

Anyway, you mentioned a Triangle of: More Dice


More Math More Accuracy

I am trying to use more math, just hide it with simpler numbers afterwards, and of course I want more accuracy. I am not as stubborn as to say "NO! Only d6!", but if I could keep it to that and maybe some coin flips, that would be nice. I have the dice, and I'm sure everyone else who would consider a game like this does too, but I've experienced too much "Crap, I forgot my dice!" in my life.

And I'm a mathematical/scientific mindset person, so the Law of Conservation of Complexity makes me happy, albeit seeming quite obvious.

[Xechon]

edited post #50 with more ideas.

For anyone with experience in physics, is this (http://www.huntersfriend.com/carbon_arrows/hunting_arrows_selection_guide_chapter_5.htm) accurate? It mentions that kinetic energy may not be the correct measurement, but is momentum more accurate? Also, I would like to know the average strength of a person with no weight training, a range would be best. I've had a hard time finding confirmation on either of these, and knowing this will give a good basis for plausible ability score range
And let me start adding numbers. Thanks. :smallbiggrin: