PDA

View Full Version : Freeform fantasy system with light rules



DJDeMiko
2012-11-07, 09:19 AM
Goal - Design a simple rule system to use in a freeform game

I love freeform games, but find that it can be hard to get people on the same page. Player A wants to play a gruff barbarian and player B wants to play gandalf.

I also find that without SOME level of challenge, that freeform starts to fall apart.

I have also found that most characters, crunch wise, in dnd-style games tend to be easily described in only two or three words.

Dex-fighter, trap finding rogue, battlefield control wizard, battle-cleric.

Deep down, if I say "Smart fighter" every single person will get a similar image in their head. If I say Charismatic rogue, we all think the same thing.

My arguments
1. Fantasy character concepts are so ingrained in our minds that simply naming a class gives most people a similar concept
2. We can further define that said character class by attaching a descriptive word to it
3. We can make the broad statement that in a world of freeform and a world with low crunch stats, that ALL characters are of roughly equal "power"


System Concept:

Character creation crunch is limited to two words. The class and the stat that represents the characters special aspect. We assume a baseline for all characters of a stat.

All barbarians are strong warriors of brute strength and lower intellect. We don't worry about feats and builds. A babarian has access to all things that a barbarian would. A strength-Barbarian is seemingly impossibly strong. A Dexterity-barbarian is still incredibly strong, but unusually agile. An Intelligence-Barbarian is still incredibly strong, but is better able to plan, use skills, etc.

Characters are all of the same "power level" but can be better at different things. In a 1 on 1 fight, a str barbarian and an int-wizard are equally matched. However, as part of a party, each has very different uses, pros and cons.

Die rolling is an opposed d20 roll, modified by common sense and the story telling of the player. A player controlling a rogue that is stealthing behind an enemy to get a sneak attack would receive a much bigger modifier than a barbarian trying to do the same thing.

Die rolling is limited to fights and major game changing plot points. Die rolling is also limited to only a few rolls per event. This allows the game to move forward faster. A fight might be best 2 out of 3 or may be simply one roll.

We can also assume that most rolls are going to be wins, but only effect how well the character wins. A successful roll is an outright success. A failed roll is a success with negative consequences. "Yes you kill him, but he manages to land a terrible blow before you do"

Quellian-dyrae
2012-11-08, 05:41 AM
I have some suggestions for you, although I tend to like more crunchy games myself, so these may not be what you're looking for. They're still quite freeform, but they add a bit of structure.

Power Ranges:

Have some rough measure of power, just to make actual high-powered play viable, and to give some general idea of what more powerful characters can do. I'd say something like:

Mundane: Characters can accomplish feats that normal people could reasonably accomplish. Magic, items, and powers might do things in a special way, but can't do things faster or better than mundane efforts (a healing spell won't do any better than mundane medical practices, a fireball is still going to just attack a single foe, etc).

Heroic: Characters can do things that, while plausible, would require highly specialized training, incredible luck, or would otherwise be considered abnormal. Characters can take on a few lesser foes at once. Magic, items, and powers can't exceed the capability of modern technology.

Superhuman: Characters can do things that are not possible for normal people to accomplish, but still affect a fairly localized scale (small groups, tactical areas, objects no bigger than a large vehicle, etc). Characters can potentially take on fair-sized groups of lesser foes at once. Magic, items, and powers generally can't exceed the scope of modern technology, but can accomplish things faster or better (you can't raise the dead or heal a severed limb, but you can heal wounds instantly; you can travel instantaneously, but can't pass through obstacles on the way, etc).

Supernatural: Characters can perform amazing feats beyond anything possible in the real world, and potentially take on armies of lesser foes. They can operate on a large scale, potentially affecting whole armies, structures, and massive areas, depending on effort exerted.

Cosmic: Characters can operate on a global or even astronomical scale, and perform godlike feats of power.

Roll Bonuses:

For determining rolls, I'd have a short list of effects that grants a Bonus. How big a Bonus is depends on how significant you want it to be, but a +5 or a reroll and take the best are ideas that come to mind for me. Bonus can be granted for:

-Taking an action that suits either "word" used for your character (an action that suits both grants two Bonuses).
-Each level of power you are higher than the opposing character, UNLESS the action is particularly off-base for both words used in your concept ("Smart Wizard" doesn't get any power bonus for swinging a sword, for example), grants one Bonus*.
-Groups working together get Bonuses for size, rather than each one getting its own roll. A small group gets one Bonus, a large group (unit, mob, etc) two, massive groups (armies, hordes, etc) get three, and truly huge groups (entire nations or even worlds) get four*.
-Particularly clever, creative, or effective actions, as determined by (GM? Group consensus? Common sense?)

*More logically these things would probably work better cumulative; one, three, six, ten rather than one, two, three, four.

Sliding Scales:

Saying a success is a success and a failure is a success with consequences seems problematic. I can see it from the standpoint of "my Stealthy Assassin wants to hide from the Skilled Fighter", success he hides, failure he hides, but the guards get suspicious. But what happens when the Skilled Fighter wants to detect the assassin? Success he detects, failure he detects, but doesn't know the identity of the character? And then, the Stealthy Assassin hiding from the Wary Scout doesn't give the scout any chance to outright detect the assassin. It gives too much advantage to being the person actively taking the action.

So instead, I'd do a sliding scale. Succeed by 5 or more points, it's an outright success. Succeed by 1-4 points, you succeed, but the opponent can interject some consequence or mitigating factor. Fail by 1-4, you fail/opponent succeeds, but you can interject some consequence or mitigating factor. Fail by 5 or more, you fail outright.

Accumulated Successes

Finally...one roll, or even just two out of three, to accomplish most any task may be a bit small. Complex or important tasks should probably have at least an allowance for multiple successes required. One successful roll should provide an advantage, sure, and maybe kill mooks and such, but not major characters. For major things (combat in particular, but other complex stuff like interrogations, negotiations, infiltrations, and the like could use this too), I'd say require accumulated successes (and of course, the opponents would be trying to accumulate successes against you). I'd do something like:

-One success: You make some progress.
-Two successes: You make major headway; your opponent takes a Penalty (opposite of a Bonus) on future checks for this contest.
-Three successes: You have accumulated necessary successes to win in the general sense, but your opponent defines how you win (it might escape, or surrender, etc). If it wants, it can keep resisting.
-Four successes: You can force the character to accept defeat (knock it out or otherwise prevent it from resisting) but you can't kill it or make major permanent changes. If you choose not to do so, the opponent can still accept defeat as with three successes.
-Five successes: Total dominance; you can kill, change, compel, or otherwise finish off the opposing character as you deem.

That lets there be a bit more give and take and tactics to such challenges, as well as increasing the survivability of major characters.

That's about all I have to offer. I mean, there's more you could do (a resource mechanic and secondary defining words for more customization come to mind), but rules-light is the goal here and I'm probably already pushing that definition.

DJDeMiko
2012-11-08, 08:41 AM
I appreciate the input but I am specifically trying to keep it crunch lite

ThiagoMartell
2012-11-08, 08:54 AM
Wait, can a system have rules and still be considered freeform? :smallconfused:

DJDeMiko
2012-11-08, 09:17 AM
I see two issues with freeform, which I love for PBP

1. is a lack of cohesion in power levels. One character builds an all powerful wizard and the other builds a street punk. Suddenly they are meant to play together. Some people can work with this, but it makes all the smaller characters feel secondary.

2. is a lack of challenge. If everytime you encounter something dangerous, all you have to do is write about how you overcome it, it takes some of the excitement out.

This is meant to be a VERY rules light system to provide a small amount of structure to a freeform game.

sirpercival
2012-11-08, 12:37 PM
Maybe take a look at Microscope's scene mechanics for ideas?

ThiagoMartell
2012-11-09, 11:55 PM
Why don't you use systems like FATE, Amber diceless, Active Exploits or Anima Prime? They are all simple in their own way.