PDA

View Full Version : Idea for Fantasy RPG Project - Looking for Writers & Designers



Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 02:08 PM
A while back (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244768), I tried to make a retro-clone of D&D Fourth Edition. Twice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14251039#post14251039). It ultimately failed due to my poor management, and lack of coherent design goals. There was even some personal conflict between the people working on design the first time around, and there was always worry about legal restrictions. It wasn't pretty.

I now have enough free time on my hands that I would like to sort of try again. Not at making a clone of D&D Fourth Edition, but by making a class-and-level d20 fantasy game that draws inspiration from the best parts of Fourth Edition.

It would have ...

A focus on the encounter. Encounters are what consume resources, take up the most time, and provide the challenge. Encounters can be based on combat, social interaction, or exploration.
A focus on balance. A goal would be relative balance between races and classes. Everyone should be able to contribute equally to every challenge, but would each do so in their own way.
A focus on simplicity. It should be quick to learn, easy to prepare for, and simple to play. Think significantly easier than Third and Fourth Edition D&D.
A relatively low rate of character death. The players shouldn't feel safe, but character death would only be a semi-regular occurrence.
Powers. Each would be a mechanical effect that could be flavored however the player wanted, with a few built-in examples.


The game would be based on the D20 SRD, and have an open licence.

If anyone would be interested in helping with the core design or the details, it would be much appreciated.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WQtypVgs174ojbuTXVgc0WDISDQNpfRV4iNibmZ1BSo/edit#

nonsi
2013-01-19, 02:46 PM
What do you have so far ? (framework/classes/features/mechanics/powers...)
I'm asking because what you present so far is too vague as to not have potential of going in a million different directions.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-19, 02:48 PM
If anyone would be interested in helping with the core design or the details, it would be much appreciated.

See, the issue I have is one I think a lot of the GitPers I'd say are qualified to do core system design probably have: we tend to have strong ideas one way or another, and that doesn't lend itself well to large group projects under another's lead.

I love the idea of a 3.5 and 4e hybrid successor, because I think both systems have a lot of strong points and melding them together could lead to something amazing. That said, I'm hesitant to sign on to such a project, because there are some points that I know that my design sensibilities would not accept compromise on: I'd suspect a lot of the system designers on GitP feel similarly about their own preferences.

So while I wish you the best of luck and will probably be following this with interest, I don't think I'd have enough design sway to make such a group endeavor a project I'd be comfortable working on. I'm naturally a person who wants to take command of such projects. :smalltongue:

EDIT: I'll also second nonsi's question above. Currently it seems a bit like "I'm running this project, but want designers to build it for me." Is that what you're looking for, or do you actually have a solid framework and/or solid ideas of how you want to move forward? Currently it looks like you need someone to even conceive the basic system framework, goals, and design. As nonsi said...everyone can take that in a different direction.

Which is, admittedly, where I find this MOST interesting...but that's because I'd take things in a very specific direction were I at the reins of such a project. :smallbiggrin:

-The Djinn

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 02:56 PM
What do you have so far ? (framework/classes/features/mechanics/powers...)
I'm asking because what you present so far is too vague as to not have potential of going in a million different directions.

I'm currently whipping up a google doc that will be significantly more meaty. In the mean time, here some some of what I had in mind. Everything is subject to change.

Characters: How quickly characters are created would depend on how much input the player wants. They could choose a race, a class, and a "package" within the class, and have their character. They could also point-buy ability scores, choose all their powers and feats, but their equipment, ect. Or do something in between.

Adventuring: The center-point of an adventure is the encounters. They are what consume resources, provide the challenge, and take up the most time. An encounter could be fighting off a band of morlocks, scaling a dangerous cliff, talking a band of cannibals out of eating you, or something else entirely.

Combat: Combat looks something like D&D Fourth Edition, but with less tactical intricacy. Perhaps a round represents a longer stretch of time (say, ten seconds), and everything is more abstract. There would still be the grid, but there would be fewer tactical rules, and the whole thing would be a bit more free-form. The mortality rate might also be slightly higher.

Running: I would want to work hard to make things easy for the GM. Lots of tools and advice for quickly creating interesting scenarios and encounters. One should be able to throw together an entertaining session on the fly.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-19, 02:59 PM
Characters: How quickly characters are created would depend on how much input the player wants. They could choose a race, a class, and a "package" within the class, and have their character. They could also point-buy ability scores, choose all their powers and feats, but their equipment, ect. Or do something in between.

Adventuring: The center-point of an adventure is the encounters. They are what consume resources, provide the challenge, and take up the most time. An encounter could be fighting off a band of morlocks, scaling a dangerous cliff, talking a band of cannibals out of eating you, or something else entirely.

Combat: Combat looks something like D&D Fourth Edition, but with less tactical intricacy. Perhaps a round represents a longer stretch of time (say, ten seconds), and everything is more abstract. There would still be the grid, but there would be fewer tactical rules, and the whole thing would be a bit more free-form. The mortality rate might also be slightly higher.

Running: I would want to work hard to make things easy for the GM. Lots of tools and advice for quickly creating interesting scenarios and encounters. One should be able to throw together an entertaining session on the fly.

See, the issue is that these are design goals, yes, but they're non-final design goals with no actual mechanics behind them. Conceptualization is fine, but it leaves a TON of work to even START building a system around this sort of conceptualization.

Is there any groundwork in place, or would potential designers be, effectively, building an entire system from scratch to meet your design goals?

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 02:59 PM
I'll also second nonsi's question above. Currently it seems a bit like "I'm running this project, but want designers to build it for me." Is that what you're looking for, or do you actually have a solid framework and/or solid ideas of how you want to move forward? Currently it looks like you need someone to even conceive the basic system framework, goals, and design. As nonsi said...everyone can take that in a different direction.

Which is, admittedly, where I find this MOST interesting...but that's because I'd take things in a very specific direction were I at the reins of such a project. :smallbiggrin:

-The Djinn

I am currently working on the basic framework, but I would like people to look at it and tear it to shreds once I'm done. What I mostly want people for is to build the much of the content, provide honest feedback, throw in ideas, and maybe work on some of the rules.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 03:20 PM
I have the very beginning of the google doc Here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WQtypVgs174ojbuTXVgc0WDISDQNpfRV4iNibmZ1BSo/edit#). My goal is to have the most basic framework of the game finished before the day is out.

lesser_minion
2013-01-19, 03:43 PM
Do you have any plans to narrow your focus compared with what 3rd and 4th edition cover? A specific idea that you want to portray -- preferably, a concept that D&D doesn't already handle well?

Because, more than anything, I think that that's probably going to make or break this project. I hate to be this negative, but there is a very definite limit to what you can achieve with a small team of hobbyists.

Otherwise, I'm tempted to suggest a move towards discrete phases. At the moment, it's just a thought, so I'll come back later with an explanation of how I think such a mechanic would work and how it would help.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 04:04 PM
The basic skeleton of the combat system is in place. Its a sort of combination of D&D Fourth and Fifth edition, only simpler, and with the tactical advantage system from Blood & Treasure. Thoughts?

lesser_minion
2013-01-19, 05:26 PM
Preliminary thoughts:

I wouldn't recommend using at-will/encounter/daily mechanics, and I definitely don't recommend deciding how to limit your powers before establishing the powers that you need to limit. If you impose a limit on a power, beyond simply how often powers can be used in a round, there should be a reason for it, not simply that other games impose limits on how often you can use their powers.

As I said before, I would actually support a move towards discrete phases, where each turn, every character gets an opportunity to move, then you would resolve any out-of-melee actions, and then anyone in melee gets to trade blows. This might seem more restrictive than the D&D system, but it would be a little easier to resolve and use in play -- in particular, it reduces the need for simultaneity hacks like attacks of opportunity.

I would also seek an alternative to simple hit points, but they aren't a deal-breaker.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-19, 10:02 PM
Preliminary thoughts:

I wouldn't recommend using at-will/encounter/daily mechanics, and I definitely don't recommend deciding how to limit your powers before establishing the powers that you need to limit. If you impose a limit on a power, beyond simply how often powers can be used in a round, there should be a reason for it, not simply that other games impose limits on how often you can use their powers.

As I said before, I would actually support a move towards discrete phases, where each turn, every character gets an opportunity to move, then you would resolve any out-of-melee actions, and then anyone in melee gets to trade blows. This might seem more restrictive than the D&D system, but it would be a little easier to resolve and use in play -- in particular, it reduces the need for simultaneity hacks like attacks of opportunity.

I would also seek an alternative to simple hit points, but they aren't a deal-breaker.

I have a strong dislike towards discrete phases, and I like hit points.

lesser_minion
2013-01-20, 07:00 AM
It's your project, so that's not a problem. Is there any reason why you're dead-set on hit points or against discrete phases?

Also, in case you were wondering, I'm willing to make suggestions and you can bounce ideas off me, but I'm not signing on to this project. Like Djinn, I'd want to take over the whole thing.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-20, 12:31 PM
It's your project, so that's not a problem. Is there any reason why you're dead-set on hit points or against discrete phases?

Always good to know. Design is, after all, as much about why you DON'T do things as it is about why you do them. :-)


Also, in case you were wondering, I'm willing to make suggestions and you can bounce ideas off me, but I'm not signing on to this project. Like Djinn, I'd want to take over the whole thing.

Heh. It's the homebrewers curse, and the reason we don't all work together more often. There comes a stage of compromise where we just go "Screw it! I'll do my OWN project!" :-P

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-01-20, 01:16 PM
I like hit points because I find them cinematic. They also allow for a lot of narrative freedom when interpreting hit point loss. They are my favorite system for tracking stamina and injuries in heroic-type RPGs, and I plan on using them and playing them up.

I like a turn-by-turn combat system because, during a character's turn, their player is in the spotlight. Just as characters take turns moving, players take turns acting and crafting a narrative. Having a "turn" to do things is fun and empowering.

Zman
2013-01-20, 03:15 PM
I like hit points because I find them cinematic. They also allow for a lot of narrative freedom when interpreting hit point loss. They are my favorite system for tracking stamina and injuries in heroic-type RPGs, and I plan on using them and playing them up.

I like a turn-by-turn combat system because, during a character's turn, their player is in the spotlight. Just as characters take turns moving, players take turns acting and crafting a narrative. Having a "turn" to do things is fun and empowering.

Interesting, I find Hit Points horribly uncimenatic. I'm a fan of a Wound/Vitality Point System or something along those lines. It's too hard for me to justify how 12 points of HP damage from a GreatAxe slays a hero early on, but is only 5-10% of a high level Characters HP which amounts to a paper cut. It easier to describe loss of Vitality Points as near misses than minor scrapes.

lesser_minion
2013-01-20, 03:48 PM
Heh. It's the homebrewers curse, and the reason we don't all work together more often. There comes a stage of compromise where we just go "Screw it! I'll do my OWN project!" :-P

Too true. This thread has actually inspired me to go back and resume ruminating on my collection of vapourware homebrew RPGs.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-20, 05:39 PM
Too true. This thread has actually inspired me to go back and resume ruminating on my collection of vapourware homebrew RPGs.

Likewise. Including my completely custom systems as well as my 3.5/4e heartbreakers (and 3.5/4e hybrid heartbreakers)! :smallbiggrin:

Zireael
2013-01-21, 02:48 PM
Interesting, I find Hit Points horribly uncimenatic. I'm a fan of a Wound/Vitality Point System or something along those lines. It's too hard for me to justify how 12 points of HP damage from a GreatAxe slays a hero early on, but is only 5-10% of a high level Characters HP which amounts to a paper cut. It easier to describe loss of Vitality Points as near misses than minor scrapes.

I'm with you on this one.

hoverfrog
2013-01-22, 09:13 AM
If it were me I'd steer clear of d20 system entirely. The hit point and armour systems are flawed too and the magic system allows for too much abuse. There needs to be a balance in classes and the simplest way I can think to do that is to do away with classes entirely and all players to purchase skill ranks in different power sets. If people want to specialise then they can but they'll lose out in other areas (which their companions will pick up, no doubt). These skills sets would include weapon and armour proficiencies, hit points, saving throws, skill points for combat skills and non combat skills, magic, etc.

I'd do away with levels too and just have a point buy system for advancement. An advancement would allow about a 10% increase in power rather than the practical doubling that d20 currently allows.

That's probably too big a deviation though.

Starbuck_II
2013-01-22, 09:42 AM
I like hit points because I find them cinematic. They also allow for a lot of narrative freedom when interpreting hit point loss. They are my favorite system for tracking stamina and injuries in heroic-type RPGs, and I plan on using them and playing them up.

I like a turn-by-turn combat system because, during a character's turn, their player is in the spotlight. Just as characters take turns moving, players take turns acting and crafting a narrative. Having a "turn" to do things is fun and empowering.

Why not have HP and Condition systems like Star Wars Saga?
It allows the cinematic freedom of hps, but allows you to track injuries as well.

Someone might be healed hp wise back to full health but down the Condition track so they aren't as healthy as they used to be (Cure spells don't cure condition track).