PDA

View Full Version : In need of help with figuring out names and a few mechanics for a D% rpg



Togath
2012-07-13, 08:27 PM
As mentioned in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249391), I've been trying to make a d100 based rpg, it's currently not even necessarily to the mechanics point, but I am having a little trouble decided on what names to use for the various stats.
The main ones are;
Toughness(base stat); how do people feel about the name?, It's basically constitution from dnd, but in high amounts can provide resistance to damage.
Magical Power(base stat): the name seems sort of clunky at the moment to me, it increases magic points and possibly spell damage(not sure if I want to add the spell damage boost to it, I may also have it grant resistance to damage from magic, to make it more useful to a non-caster)
Mental Fortitude; basically works like will save in dnd, not sure if i should change it's name or not, as it's hard to make abbreviations with it's current name, as the stat which works like fortitude saves in dnd is called fortitude
Resilience(secondary stat); reduces damage taken, like damage reduction/resistance from dnd



Also, if anyone has and ideas for some base races that could be interesting help with that would be nice as well.
So far I've come up with;
humans(as they're in almost every rpg),
insects of some sort(I'm having a little trouble deciding which type of insect or arachnid to use as inspiration for them, I was thinking of maybe using a large beetle or a tarantula, or perhaps making a race themed off of both),
a mechanical/robotic race, though I am somewhat worried it would end up seeming to much like a knock-off of ebberon if I made them completely humanoid so i was pondering making it multi armed or something,
goblins(though intelligent, and probably non-evil, probably with a culture sort of like gnomes in warcraft),
and elves(which will probably be a warrior race, I was thinking of having their culture norse themed as it's an interesting twist on normal elves).
Any other ideas for interesting races are welcome.
Also, how does "Veneficus" sound as a name for the system?

Arbane
2012-07-14, 02:19 AM
Toughness and Resilience seem redundant. I'd suggest merging them, as it sounds like they're supposed to do pretty much the same thing.

Magic Power: Just call it 'magic'.
Mental Fortitude: Call it 'willpower', 'composure' or 'sanity', even.

Have you looked at other d%-based systems to see how they do things? I'd recommend checking at least BRP (RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, etc) and Unknown Armies.

Interesting races? Hm... Intelligent, psychic slime-mold colonies, a race of Elvis clones, Llamas who do magic with song-and-dance numbers, Yeti, Viking Gnomes, intelligent but non-mobile trees, and superintelligent shades of the color blue. :smallbiggrin:

One suggestion I'd make, and I'm not saying this as a put-down: take a look at a few generic systems, like GURPs, BRP, d6, or d20. If you can play your setting in one of those, don't bother making your own new system.

Togath
2012-07-14, 02:43 AM
I'll probably keep resilience and toughness separate, though I'll probably rename resilience to damage resistance, to give it a more descriptive name, and provide an easy abbreviation.
I'll also probably go with your suggestions of willpower or sanity for the replacement for mental fortitude.
Also thank you for examples of d100 systems, i wasn't really sure what was out there with that mechanic.
Also I may actually include viking gnomes, both because I feel I should have at least a third human-like race, and because it actually sounds like something that could be interesting.
Also, for the setting, it's meant more as a...gimmick?(whatever something such as greyhawk for dnd would be, I'm not really 100% sure of the term), and I figured coming up with a base setting would help make the game seem more coherent, and would help with fluff, though I suppose I could do something more like d20 modern and make it as setting neutral as possible, it does also remind me, do you think that, if I changed a few of the mechanics, a system with fairly common use of magic could still fit in a modern setting?, Or alternatively, making it setting neutral enough to use it for both a modern setting and a medieval one?

Arbane
2012-07-14, 05:57 PM
Also thank you for examples of d100 systems, i wasn't really sure what was out there with that mechanic.

There's a fair number of them, those are just the ones I thought of immediately.
(If you're going to make a new game, it REALLY pays to look at a lot of other games, so you don't just re-create "D&D With House Rules".)


it does also remind me, do you think that, if I changed a few of the mechanics, a system with fairly common use of magic could still fit in a modern setting?, Or alternatively, making it setting neutral enough to use it for both a modern setting and a medieval one?

Well, it'd be a mighty WEIRD modern day setting, if it has cell-phones AND magic, but there's a few games that do that. (World of Darkness, GURPS Technomancer, Xcrawl, and Unknown Armies come to mind, though they all do it in different ways.) Do you want the magic to be well-known and public, like XCrawl does it, or something that needs to be kept secret? Does the 'modern' world have to be 'our world' or a reasonable facsimile, or just have modern-day level technology?

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-14, 06:21 PM
a race of Elvis clones,
You mean like the Titans of Ark (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F001.jpg)?

...Yes, have Elvis clones create the world!

Yeti, Viking Gnomes,

Now these? These could work.

Ninja PieKing
2012-07-14, 07:19 PM
make magic and technology go hand in hand. Like have it so a lot of the things we want to do with science today but can't because of physics are possible in the setting.

Nepenthe
2012-07-14, 07:31 PM
For Magical Power, how about calling it "Knack" (or possibly "The Knack")? I think that would work especially well if magic is an inherent talent in your setting.

Togath
2012-07-14, 10:41 PM
I'll probably make the magic common and part of the technology, as has been mentioned. my main idea was for the general setting of the game to have magic be a common thing, often used to help advance technology, so I was planning for things such as transport companies using magic, or magical beasts to help them, or for a metal working company to use fire magic, and/or things such as fire elementals to make smelting metal, faster and easier.
I may also rename the "magic" stack to knack or something as had been suggested, as magic does end up making some sentences look a little but awkward.
I've also added two races so far, along with some of the mechanics to the main thread now, and should have at least two more races up on it later tonight.

erikun
2012-07-14, 11:05 PM
I'll probably keep resilience and toughness separate, though I'll probably rename resilience to damage resistance, to give it a more descriptive name, and provide an easy abbreviation.
I would recommend Endurance (for how long you can keep going at an activity) and Resilience/Resistance (for how much damage you can ignore). It makes abbreviating them End and Res much better, and avoids confusion between Resilience and Damage Resilience (which is how everyone would think of them).


Also, if anyone has and ideas for some base races that could be interesting help with that would be nice as well.
Humans
Fey, or the typical Faerie Court characters. A lot of systems don't touch much on the highly unusual and magical properities of a Sidhe race, primarily just making them Tolkien elves.
For insects, one idea I've had were "driders" as basically spider-centaurs, covered in exoskeleton but whose hands make it difficult for them to manipulate large objects. They're very tough and mobile, but harder to equip with better weapons.

Norse-elves are basically Tolkien dwarves, or at least very close. You'd see a highly similar culture, although perhaps without the beard jokes.

I'm not sure what you're thinking with the robotic race.

If I may make a suggestion: small Badger- or Wolverine-like people. Make them short, hairy, and with a major attitude; something like short pissed-off dwarves.


it does also remind me, do you think that, if I changed a few of the mechanics, a system with fairly common use of magic could still fit in a modern setting?
It could, but if you just make a "modern world and oh with wizards" it will come off as rather bland. Depending on how well you build your worlds, I'd recommend going through and re-thinking how things work with the element of magic involved. Take a look at Shadowrun or Eclipse Phase of well thought-out settings where the basic assumptions pretty much change life at every angle.

Togath
2012-07-19, 05:42 PM
I've started to get a little bit more work done, and have gone through and reworked a bit of the system(had pondered switching to a d20 system as well), I'll post the updates on the thread I have in the homebrew section once I finished the first two classes/archetypes(knight and something else, either a caster or a rogue style class/archetype).
I also need some input; what should I call the class thingies? I had originally planned to call them "archetypes"(as even something as specific as a knight in the system could be anything from a classic noble-knight, a mercenary, an archer, a rifleman, a samurai, a fencer, a blackguard sort of character, or just someone skilled at wielding large weapons while wearing very heavy armour) but after looking through various other systems, I've begun to wonder if calling them "classes" could work as well, though I was also having trouble deciding which sounded better, and which someone used to a different rpg would understand better.
Also, should I add something like feats in D&D/PF/D20modern?
And, how detailed should I make skills?, Should I go with something closer to 3.5 D&D or something more like CoC or 4E D&D?
Also, does anyone have ideas for interesting abilities for knights to be able to do and how I should scale them?, So far I'm going with a system of assigning abilities levels such as "improved melee strike LV. 1" with the next step up being a separate ability called "improved melee strike Lv. 2", but those names dotn really sound that impressive. A few examples of what I have so far;
Leap Attack: grants extra damage and mobility, at the cost of reduced damage resistance and avoidance(avoidance increases your chance not to be hit, so it's like an AC penalty in DnD).
Improved Melee Strike: adds a small bonus to both damage and hit chance for melee weapons
Improved Bow/Rifle Strike: adds a small bonus to hit chance, and a medium bonus to damage with bows and two handed firearms.

Abilities are currently obtained by spending points granted by your class, but I was thinking of potentially having a smaller number being gained with points, and the majority being automatic from levels(which would simplify balancing and writing the system, but I was worried about it not giving enough variety between different characters if I did it that way)
I was having trouble deciding so i thought I would ask here about that part as well.

Knaight
2012-07-19, 07:10 PM
I'd recommend working out some of the high level stuff first - you want a setting concept with some depth if oyu are going for a setting specific game, and you want it before you start working on mechanics. With that said, two questions.

Do you even need attribute-like statistics? You could have something skill based, or archetype based, or rank+talent based, or any number of things. There is no need to jump to attributes if others of these will work.

Do you need other species? If so, do you need specific races or would it be better to have a race design species?

Also - what existing games are you familiar with? If you're designing a system, it usually helps to have seen a fair amount of other systems so you have at least some idea of what is out there and what can work.

Togath
2012-07-20, 12:12 PM
Do you even need attribute-like statistics? You could have something skill based, or archetype based, or rank+talent based, or any number of things. There is no need to jump to attributes if others of these will work.

Do you need other species? If so, do you need specific races or would it be better to have a race design species?

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean with these two questions?
I dont really understand the first question at all, and i can only understand a few parts of the second.
I plan to have multible races, and possibly cut humans out of the setting.
With races being species rather then cultures(in the sense that you could have viking ogres, chinese ogres, samurai ogres, arabian ogres, or celtic ogres)

Knaight
2012-07-21, 05:43 AM
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean with these two questions?
I dont really understand the first question at all, and i can only understand a few parts of the second.
I plan to have multible races, and possibly cut humans out of the setting.
With races being species rather then cultures(in the sense that you could have viking ogres, chinese ogres, samurai ogres, arabian ogres, or celtic ogres)

As is, you have a statistics (your term) that basically mirror attributes. I'm asking whether you actually need attributes. As for the second question, I'm asking whether you even need races, and if so whether you need defined species, where the other option is a system for making species.

Togath
2012-07-21, 07:19 AM
For attributes I do feel they are necessary, as I need something to base mechanics off of. Class choice will affect the attributes though, and part of the point is that differing archetypes will give stats more suited to that archetype.
Also, for high level things, do you mean just figure out what I want to standard max level to be?, I currently am going for level 40 as a level cap.
Also for races, I'm planning to have defined races, but have rules for GMs who want to add their own races or creatures.

erikun
2012-07-21, 09:44 AM
I also need some input; what should I call the class thingies? I had originally planned to call them "archetypes"(as even something as specific as a knight in the system could be anything from a classic noble-knight, a mercenary, an archer, a rifleman, a samurai, a fencer, a blackguard sort of character, or just someone skilled at wielding large weapons while wearing very heavy armour) but after looking through various other systems, I've begun to wonder if calling them "classes" could work as well, though I was also having trouble deciding which sounded better, and which someone used to a different rpg would understand better.
You can always go back and rename them later, but just calling them classes will be understood my most other people with a RPG background.

Other than that, I'd look at what they represent and name them appropriately. If they are supposed to represent an archetype, then call them archetypes. If they are supposed to represent a skillset or occupation, then call them a skillset or occupation.


Also, should I add something like feats in D&D/PF/D20modern?
And, how detailed should I make skills?, Should I go with something closer to 3.5 D&D or something more like CoC or 4E D&D?
D&D feats are generally poorly thought out, being a random grabbag of abilities that are either worthless (especially compared to how few you get) or hideously overpowered. Consider what you want them to do before including "feats", and ask yourself if you can't hand out these abilities and bonuses some other way.

How detailed you want your skills depends entirely on what you want the system to focus on. Ideally, you'd want to play a few games and then decide how broad/narrow the skills should be.


Also, does anyone have ideas for interesting abilities for knights to be able to do and how I should scale them?, So far I'm going with a system of assigning abilities levels such as "improved melee strike LV. 1" with the next step up being a separate ability called "improved melee strike Lv. 2", but those names dotn really sound that impressive. A few examples of what I have so far;
Leap Attack: grants extra damage and mobility, at the cost of reduced damage resistance and avoidance(avoidance increases your chance not to be hit, so it's like an AC penalty in DnD).
Improved Melee Strike: adds a small bonus to both damage and hit chance for melee weapons
Improved Bow/Rifle Strike: adds a small bonus to hit chance, and a medium bonus to damage with bows and two handed firearms.
Knights are traditionally heavy-armored calvary nobles sworn allegiance to somebody. As such, some sort of armored deflection bonus/abilities, improved riding skills, influence and access to people are resources make sense as knight skills.


Abilities are currently obtained by spending points granted by your class, but I was thinking of potentially having a smaller number being gained with points, and the majority being automatic from levels(which would simplify balancing and writing the system, but I was worried about it not giving enough variety between different characters if I did it that way)
I was having trouble deciding so i thought I would ask here about that part as well.
I'm not sure what the idea behind this is, or how it would work. Like, a character would get "5 knight class points" at 5th level, and could spend them on 5 points worth of knight class abilities?

It sounds like a very complex way to handle what are basically alternate class features. It also seems like you want to make a point-buy system, but without making a point-buy system.


For attributes I do feel they are necessary, as I need something to base mechanics off of. Class choice will affect the attributes though, and part of the point is that differing archetypes will give stats more suited to that archetype.
Plenty of systems work just fine without having a specific "Strength Score" or "Toughness Score". They could be based off skills (making being skilled at something far more important). There are other things that you could base mechanics off of instead of a handful of global "all-inclusive" attribute scores.


Also for races, I'm planning to have defined races, but have rules for GMs who want to add their own races or creatures.
So what is the point of your races? If there are no humans but only viking ogres, samurai ogres, arabian ogres and so on, why point out such a difference? Why not just have humans as vikings, samurai, and arabians, and grant them whatever magical abilities you were planning on making your ogres unique?

Jay R
2012-07-21, 10:56 AM
Toughness(base stat); how do people feel about the name?

At least half your players will call it "Constitu, ... I mean, toughness". If you want Constitution, say Constitution. Filing the serial numbers off doesn't make it look less derivative. And there's nothing wrong with deriving ideas from earlier systems.


insects of some sort(I'm having a little trouble deciding which type of insect or arachnid to use as inspiration for them, I was thinking of maybe using a large beetle or a tarantula, or perhaps making a race themed off of both),

Decide what you want the race's culture to be like first, and then pick the insect or arachnid to match. A hive mind should be ants; a queen and slaves should be bees; a race of scavengers should be flies or roaches; a race of hunters should be tarantulas or wolf spiders; and a race of brooding waiters should be web-spinners. Use the qualities of the insect to make the race seem really inhuman, not just people in a funny body.


Any other ideas for interesting races are welcome.

Again, you're working backwards. Decide what a race should be like, and where it lives, and let that determine what they are like. If you want a hidden race deep in the world's greatest swamp, they should be amphibious - frog-like perhaps. Perhaps there are two races in a epic, thousand year-long war. They could be red and back ants, or possibly the same race with two religions.

Any time you have a new race, you should know why they are not humans. That reason is the basis that you will design the race around.


Also, how does "Veneficus" sound as a name for the system?

Like fake Latin, trying to sound like a word meaning "making something come", just as "beneficial" means "doing good", and "artificial" means "made by arts".

I recommend either a descriptive name, like "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Pathfinder", or a made-up word that doesn't have the form of a Latin word.

Togath
2012-07-21, 01:59 PM
I actually did rename the toughness score to constitution, just for the fact that even I was calling it that by mistake.
I also did end up settling on the main insect/arachnid race, a race of rhinoceros beetles who work as painters, perfume merchants, or traveling bakers.
Also, regarding Venficus as a name for the system, do you mean that latin names sound cheesy, or did you mean due to the meaning of the word veneficus(meaning poisonous, pestilent, warlock or witch)?
I'll also probably keep the archetypes called archetypes(as, at least form my understanding, an archetype is more vague then a class, correct?)
I've also switched to having more automatically gained abilities, as previously it was basically what you described, gaining levels in a class got you points from that class to spend on class features.
I was also planning on keep attributes, as the skill system is planned to be condensed compared to something such as 3.5 dnd.
I also did decide to keep humans, but there will still be a large number of non-human races, such as beetle-folk, ogres, and burly elves.

kyoryu
2012-07-21, 02:05 PM
I'm going to make a single suggestion - start with figuring out what kinds of decisions you want players to make while playing, and what should go into those decisions. That will give you a basis for determining what mechanics/rules/etc. you need in the game. It also gives you a basis for determining the success of your mechanics - if players are making the types of decisions you want them to make, your mechanic is successful.

Jay R
2012-07-21, 05:54 PM
Also, regarding Venficus as a name for the system, do you mean that latin names sound cheesy, or did you mean due to the meaning of the word veneficus(meaning poisonous, pestilent, warlock or witch)?

My mistake. I thought it was made up, so I tried to parse it etymologically.

Now I've looked it up. It primarily means poisoner, and through that, witch or magician. Is that what you want?

Also, it's used scientifically. Pseudomyrmex veneficus is a wasp-like ant. You might consider that inappropriate for a game with a prominent insectoid race based on a different insect.

(It's also used in RavenLoft as the name of the estate of a prominent character.)


I'll also probably keep the archetypes called archetypes(as, at least form my understanding, an archetype is more vague then a class, correct?)

More vague? Well, it's certainly a very different thing.

An archetype is a universal symbol or idea. Knights, mercenaries, archers, riflemen, a samurais, and fencers are all examples of the archetype "Fighting Man".

If you have to define them, they aren't archetypes. Call them Classes, Backgrounds, Professions, Categories or Types.

Togath
2012-07-22, 01:32 PM
My mistake. I thought it was made up, so I tried to parse it etymologically.

Now I've looked it up. It primarily means prisoner, and through that, witch or magician. Is that what you want?

Also, it's used scientifically. Pseudomyrmex veneficus is a wasp-like ant. You might consider that inappropriate for a game with a prominent insectoid race based on a different insect.

(It's also used in RavenLoft as the name of the estate of a prominent character.)



More vague? Well, it's certainly a very different thing.

An archetype is a universal symbol or idea. Knights, mercenaries, archers, riflemen, a samurais, and fencers are all examples of the archetype "Fighting Man".

If you have to define them, they aren't archetypes. Call them Classes, Backgrounds, Professions, Categories or Types.

I'll probably change the name of the system to something else(probably either in english, norwegian, or latin).
I'm also going to change the names from "archetypes" to classes",
edit; nevermind, just realised I miss read your post, I'll probably keep them called archetypes then
I'll also probably rename the knight to...something less specific(only thing that comes to mind is right now is; fighter, but that conjure images of fighters in dnd, or warrior, which sounds too video gamy to me)

Togath
2012-07-24, 12:11 AM
Another thing I just came across, what should I use for currency?, something like dnd or most rpgs in general(2-5 ranks of coins each worth either 10 or 100 of the rank below them) or either "units"(fluffed as whatever the dm wants) or misc coins(mathematically like the "units" but called coins)?
And how vague should i make weapon mechanics?, Should I make differences between a gladius, a dirk, and a shortsword?, Or leave things such as that into a generic "short blade' category?

Knaight
2012-07-24, 01:02 AM
Another thing I just came across, what should I use for currency?, something like dnd or most rpgs in general(2-5 ranks of coins each worth either 10 or 100 of the rank below them) or either "units"(fluffed as whatever the dm wants) or misc coins(mathematically like the "units" but called coins)?
And how vague should i make weapon mechanics?, Should I make differences between a gladius, a dirk, and a shortsword?, Or leave things such as that into a generic "short blade' category?

Unless you want your game to be about economics, I'd recommend using an abstract fund system.

Togath
2012-07-24, 02:02 AM
So go with the units then, correct?(each unit being sort of like a copper piece in dnd, or a penny or yen in real life)
edit; also, for weapons, should i have damage be a static number, a die or dice, or a die with a small bonus?
Most damage from spells and that sort of thing is planned to be mostly static.

Knaight
2012-07-24, 02:32 AM
So go with the units then, correct?(each unit being sort of like a copper piece in dnd, or a penny or yen in real life)
edit; also, for weapons, should i have damage be a static number, a die or dice, or a die with a small bonus?
Most damage from spells and that sort of thing is planned to be mostly static.

I'm thinking less units and more a Wealth statistic. Instead of having 129 gold, 9 silver, and 6 copper you might have Wealth 4. D20 modern has a system along these lines, though it is completely terrible - there are better examples (REIGN, Chronica Feudalis, Burning Wheel), but as far as I know none of them are free.

Togath
2012-07-24, 02:41 AM
I'll probably avoid a completely abstract system for currency, as I like the idea of treasure hoards, and the system is supposed to be rules heavy.
I may still use the units idea(as it's fairly simple) though I may rename them coins or gold, or something
edit; also, how does this sound for the base weapons available?
Light melee;
Gauntlet
Spiked Gauntlet
Sickle
Dagger
Katar
Handaxe
Light-hammer/realistic warhammer
Kukri
Shortsword(slashing, stabbing and slashing&stabbing varieties fall into this category)
Rapier
Kama
Nunchaku
Sai(correctly portrayed ones rather then the fictional versions)
Whip
Scourge
Francisca

One Handed Melee;
Longsword
Shortspear
Battleaxe
Chain(wielded one handed)
Falchion(the historical one, not the dnd style one)
Light-flail/historical flail
Harpoon
Heavy Whip(something I just made up, because i thought I should give whip users somewhat more versatility)
Macuahuitl
Scimitar
Trident

Two Handed Melee;
Bardiche
Staff
Staff(metal)
DaoDao
Great-Flail(standard video game style giant flail, added because i personally like the non-realistic flails better)
Glave
Executioner's Axe
Greatclub
Tetsubo
Guisarme
Large-Two Handed Sword(not sure what to call it, it's the category claymores, zweihanders and other large swords fall into)
Great- Macuahuitl(another made up weapon, because it seemed like a neat option to have a giant macuahuitl)
Halberd

Have any ideas for any weapons I missed?(I'm still working on a list of ranged weapons and will add them ocne I finish on them)