Ideas for Customizing a System for Newbies?

[esotErik]

I've never played a tabletop rpg in my life, but I've become very interested in trying it out from reading OoTS, Silverclawshift's campaign journals, etc, so I've convinced a couple of friends to try it out with me. I've done a lot of research, so I have a decent grasp of how D&D works, but I know that neither me nor my friends have the patience for all the rules and numbers an such. As a result I've decided to use Microlite20 (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite20-rpg-collection), a heavily simplified version of D&D 3.5 that does stuff like remove feats, reduce stats and skills, and emphasize DM Fiat. I guess I kind of have my own idea of what I want our experience to be like, though, so I've been trying to tweak the rules to fit. I was hoping you rpg experts could help me out.

Magic: In Microlite20 magic users cast any spell on their list (which is an abbreviated version of the SRD list) at the cost of a spell level-based amount of HP. As a result, prepared vs. spontaneous casting doesn't exist and Wizard/Sorcerer aren't differentiated and are just "Mage." I don't like this system and I want to replace it with a Vancian system. Any ideas? I'm thinking just giving every magic user their spells per day charts, but then it seems like the Wizard/Sorcerer would either be relatively too good or too bad relative to Clerics/Druids...

Skills: Microlite20 condenses all the skills down to 5: Physical, Subterfuge, Knowledge, Communication, and Survival. At level 1 you get a bonus to one or more skills based on your class, and then you get 1 point in every skill every subsequent level. This gives you no skill customization and causes the differentiation in your skills to become less relevant as you level up. Any ideas for alternate methods of increasing skills on level up?

Speed: I'm worried about how fast encounters go. The main thing that has put me off tabletop games is how long everything supposedly takes. This simplified system will probably help already, but any other tips on making combat not take forever in a tabletop rpg?

Thanks to anyone who bothers to help me with any of my concerns. I might throw out a few more, too :smalltongue:

[Grinner]

Magic: The main thing about magic is the range of abilities that casters can invoke. Clerics and Druids are fairly competent in combat, but the Cast-from-HP makes them a bit hesitant about over-using their abilities. Vancian casting makes it a bit easier, however, since they don't have to worry about conserving HP. I guess the same applies to wizards.

I've never really known what to think about M20's answer to the usually extremely powerful magic users. The cast-from-HP rule does discourage players from trivializing physical obstacles with magic, but it also strips casters of much of their other utility.

Skills: Then you get the opposite problem of the heavily armored fighter not making his subterfuge checks. If you decide to go ahead with modified skills, you may want to assign a class skill to each class, and then allow the player to select two other skills to increase.

i.e. Fighters always get +1 to Physical when leveling up, and Wizards always get +1 to Knowledge when leveling up.

Speed: Not having special combat rules should speed things up immensely. Also, the DM may want to preroll his rolls and write them into a chart.

Additionally, I've found keeping track of combat with index cards works wonders. Just keep a stock of monster statistics on hand and, when combat occurs, copy their names (i.e. Orc 1, Orc 2, Goblin 1, etc.) and HP down. Even better, wait until initiative is rolled and write down every character and their HP in initiative order.

[esotErik]

Speed: Not having special combat rules should speed things up immensely. Also, the DM may want to preroll his rolls and write them into a chart.

That sounds interesting, but how exactly does that work? Do you just fill out a chart and then read down it for every roll?

And yeah, it seems like magic users are either going to be too powerful or too limited. And what you suggested is kind of what I was considering doing with the skills.

[Grinner]

That sounds interesting, but how exactly does that work? Do you just fill out a chart and then read down it for every roll?

Yeah. Before the session, get out whatever dice you'll need, primarily the d20, roll them, record the result, and repeat ad nauseam. Then, when you need a die roll for a NPC, just consult your handy chart. Players should still get their own rolls, however.

[W3bDragon]

I would say that prerolling dice, though probably a time saver, only really makes a difference when there are a large number of dice to roll. So if you know they'll be fighting a dragon that does 20d6 damage with his breath weapon, it would be useful to preroll 20d6 a few times before the session and record the numbers.

However, when you're dealing with simple rolls, I find that actually rolling a d20 is as fast as finding where you were on your prerolled chart and using that number. Besides, there is something iconic about the players going quiet as they watch the DM pick up a dice, roll it behind his screen, look at the result, then look back up at them with a menacing grin.

As for tips on how to customize the system, from what you're posted, I feel like the answer should be: Don't, not yet anyway. I'm definitely an advocate of trying out a system the way it was designed to be played before tinkering with it. That way, any changes you make would come from experience rather than guesswork.

Magic: If the only problem is that spells are taxing HPs, then just give them a mana pool equal to one of their stats. After they exhaust that pool, they start taxing their HPs. The pool replenishes when they rest.

Skills: The lack of differentiation between classes in skills isn't a problem, its a boon. It allows newbies to try any skill with any class, which helps them find their likes and dislikes when it comes to play style.

Speed: Try to reduce the number of opponents you throw at them. That speeds up combat a lot. So instead of fighting 10 goblins grunts, they fight 1 goblin commander and two goblin grunts. The challenge would be relatively the same, but the reduced number of opponents would make combat run much faster. Also, a fight with a few tough opponents tends to be more fun than a fight against hordes of weak enemies.

[Synovia]

Magic: The main thing about magic is the range of abilities that casters can invoke. Clerics and Druids are fairly competent in combat, but the Cast-from-HP makes them a bit hesitant about over-using their abilities. Vancian casting makes it a bit easier, however, since they don't have to worry about conserving HP. I guess the same applies to wizards.

I've never really known what to think about M20's answer to the usually extremely powerful magic users. The cast-from-HP rule does discourage players from trivializing physical obstacles with magic, but it also strips casters of much of their other utility.

I don't see any of this being a bad thing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Speed: Try to reduce the number of opponents you throw at them. That speeds up combat a lot. So instead of fighting 10 goblins grunts, they fight 1 goblin commander and two goblin grunts. The challenge would be relatively the same, but the reduced number of opponents would make combat run much faster. Also, a fight with a few tough opponents tends to be more fun than a fight against hordes of weak enemies.

I don't entirely agree with this. A good minion massacre can be a lot of fun/ It lets the players show off and feel like Big Gorram Heroes. It replaces abstract hit points (ok, 35 damage) with very tangible and immediate results (sweet, 5 guys down!). And it emulates the feel of movie and videogame fight scenes a lot better than your average "whittle away the boss' health" fight does.

One of my favorite encounters I've ever ran involved the 5 protagonists trying to fight off an entire air force. (They won. Yay, Mutants and Masterminds!)

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Speed: Try to reduce the number of opponents you throw at them. That speeds up combat a lot. So instead of fighting 10 goblins grunts, they fight 1 goblin commander and two goblin grunts. The challenge would be relatively the same, but the reduced number of opponents would make combat run much faster. Also, a fight with a few tough opponents tends to be more fun than a fight against hordes of weak enemies.Like Grod, I don't think this is always a good idea (though it can be, sometimes). Be aware that it will also make encounters easier over-all as the players will have more actions relative to the enemies; put another way, 10 goblins get 10 standard actions each round of combat, 3 (stronger) goblins only get 3 standard actions; even if each of the stronger goblin's actions is better (more likely to hit, does more damage, casts better spells, etc.) having fewer reduces the amount that they can pull off as a team in terms of applying pressure to multiple targets, performing non-attack actions (if you have to use up 1/3 of the enemies' turn to have someone make a heal check, move to a better position (such as to set up a flank) or open a door and call for backup, that's much worse than it only taking 1/10 of their turn.)

One thing that helps a lot for speed is for the DM to start the encounter knowing each monster's default tactics. It can be as simple as "The orcs always move and attack the nearest target" or as complicated as the round-by-round tactics the SRD gives for big monsters like Pit Fiends (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#pitFiend). I usually use the former for weaker enemies and the latter for solo enemies or for commanders who fight with swarms of weaker minions. It can adapt as need be based on PC tactics (like having a caster use Dispel Magic if there's a good target) but having a starting point lets the DM take quicker turns.

Keep the initiative order clear and visible in combat so people know when their turns are coming. Consider making enemies defensive stats (mostly AC, but this also helps with spell resistance) known to players so the DM doesn't have to take time to compare every attack roll to the AC. I personally will let the players know when a roll came close to hitting so they can tell whether later rolls that are higher or lower will hit or miss without me having to say so.

My group doesn't do it, but I've heard of groups where there's a time at the table and players get a small bonus (+1 or 2) on every roll they make in the first few second of their turn (maybe 10 or 20). That way, players will plan ahead while it isn't their turn and be ready to go when their turn starts so they can claim their bonus.

[Synovia]

Keep the initiative order clear and visible in combat so people know when their turns are coming. Consider making enemies defensive stats (mostly AC, but this also helps with spell resistance) known to players so the DM doesn't have to take time to compare every attack roll to the AC. I personally will let the players know when a roll came close to hitting so they can tell whether later rolls that are higher or lower will hit or miss without me having to say so.

Everything in this paragraph is fantastic.

People not knowing when their turn is, and getting distracted, are probably the biggest slow down. If people are on point and paying attention, D&D combat actually goes pretty quickly. The problem is, between spellcasters taking forever, and people losing focus while those spellcasters are taking forever, a ton of time is lost.

Also, I tend to do the same thing with AC. I don't immediately tell them what the AC is, but I tend to keep track for them of what hits and what misses. So they may not know the AC is 35 when they've only rolled a 40 and a 30, but they know enough to just discard anything below a 30 until someone rolls something closer. After a couple attacks I usually tell them what the AC is (because they've gotten close enough)

[BlckDv]

I open each combat by giving my players a hit range "Less than 23 you miss, more than 27 you hit, ask in the middle."

As long as you don't have skills that require a choice be made "in the gap" rolling the damage dice with the attack is also a great time saver.

We reveal an Initiative chart after the first round of combat, and one of the players takes charge of tracking rounds passed, and announces who is "on deck" so that player can stat planning when the battle probably looks fairly close to what he will actually be working with but while another player is in action.

We also require that any "table talk" is done IC, and so limit players to providing 6 seconds of advice to other players per round, some parties hate this kind of rule, others love it.

Adopting some variant of the 4e "Minion" style monsters can be great for balancing numbers vs. speed.. monsters that die after one attack damages them, and do a fixed amount of damage on a hit.

As for the Magic system; I like the idea above, maybe give them Mana equal to their Casting Stat per fight, and once that is burned more spells cost HP. Doesn't get you to Vancian complexity, but prevents you having to draft major new swathes of rules. If you really want a more Vancian system, you'll need to make a spells/level chart as well as a spells known chart for each class. If you want to make Wizard vs. Sorceror feel diff. perhaps the Wizard has to pre-fill his Spells/level from spells known, but can change out uncast spells between fights? More forgiving for novice players, but does make the Sorc. more flexible but presumably a smaller list of Spells Known.

No ideas to add on then skills item.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

As long as you don't have skills that require a choice be made "in the gap" rolling the damage dice with the attack is also a great time saver.This reminds me; one thing I need to get my group to be better at is knowing what dice to roll for damage. This especially applies to my party's newest player. Every time he scores a hit, there's a progression of:
"I know what to roll, give me a second."
*looks at character sheet*
"1d8 for the warhammer"
*picks up his d10 and is corrected*
"And I'm invisible so I get sneak attack right?"
*agreement from DM*
"Alright, so that's..."
*turns to appropriate page of character sheet, eventually finding his note on sneak attack damage*
"...5d6..."
*counts out 5d6*
"Oh, yeah and my hammer's flaming so that's one more d6."
*adds another d6*
"Okay, so am I missing anything?"

I don't want to stop him from learning and he is getting faster, but there's still a 30 second lag every time one of his attacks hits as he looks through his character sheet and decides which dice he needs. I'm considering making him a note card with spots for him to pre-group his dice ("Base hammer + flaming: Set 1d8+1d6 here." "Sneak Attack: Set 5d6 here." and so on) but I don't want to come off as belittling or make it feel like I'm handing him a dunce cap.

If you aren't too commited to the system, you might consider picking one that's lighter on rules and complexity for the first few sessions, just to get your new players introduced to the idea of roleplaying and the basic mechanics. I haven't played it, but Warrior Rogue and Mage (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/) looks like a good, simple (and free) d6 based system with core mechanics similar to D20 (roll your d6, add modifiers, try to beat the DC). It's a classless system where players spend points on three attributes (warrior, rogue and mage) that roughly correspond to their strength/constitution, dexterity/charisma and intelligence/wisdom (respectively) and all other stats like HP and defense (equivalent to D&D's AC) are calculated from those. Everyone with ranks in mage can cast at least basic spells which they buy in scrolls for money like other equipment. Attacks and skill checks are resolved by 1d6 plus warrior/rogue/mage (depending on the skill or weapon) vs. the defense of the enemy or the difficulty of the task. You can get a static +2 bonus on most checks by being trained in the appropriate skill or weapon.

[esotErik]

Thanks for all the advice.

I think W3bDragon's right, I probably shouldn't mess with the system too much before we've even played it. The stuff on faster combat was helpful, though. The one-hit-die minions sounds really interesting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Thanks for all the advice.

I think W3bDragon's right, I probably shouldn't mess with the system too much before we've even played it. The stuff on faster combat was helpful, though. The one-hit-die minions sounds really interesting.

One hit point, but they unaccountably have Evasion and Mettle-- otherwise, it's impossible for them to avoid things like area attacks, and that makes things too easy.

[1337 b4k4]

I think W3bDragon's right, I probably shouldn't mess with the system too much before we've even played it.

Very much so. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made in DMing was house ruling the system before I ever got around to trying it out. Some of the things I changed wound up sucking, and it turned out that even though the original system didn't quite read right on paper, it actually worked pretty well. M20's magic system is actually quite elegant and works well, and I would recommend giving it a try.

Alternatively, if you really want vancian casting, and you think you and your players can get started with something a bit bigger than the 2 pages that M20 is, you might consider downloading Swords and Wizardry, which is a retro-clone of 0e D&D, but with a bunch of hooks and changes to make it smoother and easier (ascending AC, single saving throw etc). All the classes, spells and combat stuff make up about 40 pages and then there's the DM section, but realistically, you don't need to read all that at once. And it's a fairly robust system, designed around being house rules later (they even distribute it as an RTF file so that you can edit it if you want), so you could drop things like the encumbrance rules, time tracking and so on until you're ready to add them in.