PDA

View Full Version : Homebrew with Worldbrew Aspirations



DMMike
2013-02-28, 11:43 AM
I suspect there are some very discerning eyes around here...

I started a homebrew RPG with two premises:
1) d20 is a good system, but could be simpler.
2) a really good system would be simple, free, and easily adapted to user modification.

So the P&P RPG (pen and paper, if you corner me) was born. And is still finding its way in the world. Please check it out, give feedback, and feel free to become a co-writer if you're inclined. The basics, and a slowly growing wiki, are here:

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/p-p-rpg

To save you from having to click a link, here are the (very) basics:
- Characters have three ability scores: Physical, Mental, and Metaphysical.
- Characters have only five features: levels, ability scores, skills, perks, and hero points.
- There are no DCs, just opposed d20 rolls. If a character isn't rolling against an opponent, he's rolling against the GM's d20 plus a guesstimated difficulty bonus.
- For any roll, you can choose to take half the highest result of the die.
- Characters start with three actions per round, and gain more actions for each +5 modifier they have in any ability score.
- Monster creation is the same as character creation - start building from level 1.

Questions or comments, let me know.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-28, 12:21 PM
...the P&P RPG...

This name will make discussion of your game confusing, if you intend to try to popularize it in any way when it's finished. That's kind of like making a shooter called FPS, or a DotA clone called MOBA: the name is the acronym that the entire genre is known by. Might want to reconsider that.

Nitpicks
I really don't like the way you present role-playing as a series of bullet points. It makes it seem overly mechanical, and like there's some secret step-by-step process for good role-playing, which isn't really true.

Issues
Three damage pools that don't seem to interact with each other (although you don't have the rules for attack, so I'm not sure) means that there are three resources to wear through...so a party will either need to all target the same resource, or X% of the party's actions will be effectively wasted.

Further, making physical attacks target a single pool which heals incredibly slowly seems to really hurt those who are in the front lines and exposed to such damage. Wizards and their ilk, who I imagine will be slinging Mental and Metaphysical damage at each other, seem like they'll heal up much faster.

You don't say what the damage pool is. I'm imagining it's a flat number equal to the ability score in question?

Hero points should be better defined: give us a default value, and assume they'll be used. That gives you more freedom to make interesting perks that rely on Hero points. Additionally, don't allow Villain points to negate Hero points: that makes players feel like they've wasted the Hero point, as any good Villain will have a few of those sitting by just to negate their expenditure of a limited resource. Instead, let Villain points bolster the Villain's actions. That way, heroes won't feel bad about using Hero points to achieve great successes, while they'll know that the Villain is capable of such great successes as well, which actually encourages using points against him rather than discouraging it.

Your skill list is incredibly strange: it seems like you're somewhat encouraging free-form skills, but with only one skill point to toss around per level you'll see very little character difference: characters will have 1 perk and 1 skill point in difference, as well as abilities...and there are only three abilities, and no way to determine how they are generated.

Finally (for now), because you can always take 10, it's better to do so every time you have a +2 or more bonus on your opponent, and worse to do so otherwise. There's no other reason to take 10, as you're only increasing your opponent's chances for success and there's no risk for critical failure or anything of the sort.

Conclusion
You're making a very rules-light RPG here, but your structure of bullet-points and hard definitions is making it seem like you want a rules-heavy RPG. It's a bit disconcerting to read, especially since many of the rules aren't anywhere near finished yet.

At this point, I can't make a call on the system, although I'll say that it looks a little to generic for my tastes (and I like generic systems). I'm not seeing much unique identity here: just a rough roll engine tied to some vague rules. I would, however, be interested in seeing you hammer some of these rules into place so we can get a better idea of the system.

DMMike
2013-02-28, 01:20 PM
Djinn: thanks for a critical view! Hoping to help clear some things up here...

Name: I'm open to new names. That's one of the easier parts to change.

Roleplaying bullets: one thing I probably didn't make clear is that the rules are presented in rules-only format; the flavorful rules you're used to seeing in most rulebooks don't lend themselves to easy rewriting, supplementing, nor removal. All of which are part of the concept of this modular rules system.

Damage pool relation: no, the damage pools are not related. If you're talking about a party attacking, say, a BBEG, you're correct: the party will do better to attack only one ability (and its corresponding damage pool). However, not all party members will be able to attack all abilities - the fighter will do best against Physical, and the mage will do best against Mental. So the party members will, hopefully, have to coordinate with each other. (Note: my current intent is to make the Metaphysical pool VERY hard to hit, since casters deal damage to themselves just by casting spells.)

Slow-healing scores: wizards take Physical damage just like fighters do. And Mental damage. The faster healing rate of Metaphysical doesn't give wizards more Physical power (closest relation to hit points), just more Metaphysical breathing room.

Damage pool, rule 103.1.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/damage

Hero points: I like your ideas. Gonna work on incorporating them. (If you don't mind)

Skill list: intentionally generic, to facilitate modification. The skills-per-level can be increased, or I've been looking at classes that grant more (and directed) skill points. Or characters can just start higher than first level.

Taking 10: it would take a result or two to know if you have +2 on your opponent, right? Anyway, I'm not seeing how it's always better, because it does thwart your opponent's attempt to take 10, but he can still choose to roll for one of those coveted 13s-and-higher.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-28, 02:12 PM
Roleplaying bullets: one thing I probably didn't make clear is that the rules are presented in rules-only format; the flavorful rules you're used to seeing in most rulebooks don't lend themselves to easy rewriting, supplementing, nor removal. All of which are part of the concept of this modular rules system.

I feel that the rules for role-playing aren't really modular though: they're pretty consistent across all RP systems, and don't lend themselves to beings taken as modular elements. Personal preference though--although that being said, it's where I'd put down a document and stop reading if I were just looking for a game to play. I don't want my RP compartmentalized into bite-sized rules blurbs.


Damage pool relation: no, the damage pools are not related. If you're talking about a party attacking, say, a BBEG, you're correct: the party will do better to attack only one ability (and its corresponding damage pool).

As I assumed.


However, not all party members will be able to attack all abilities - the fighter will do best against Physical, and the mage will do best against Mental.

This, however, is extremely bad. It means that a large portion of the party is doing nothing to contribute to the BBEG's demise, as only one pool of damage (the one that eventually brings him down) actually matters. It's the reason Save-or-Dies are so annoying in D&D 3.5: no matter how much HP damage the target has taken, a Save-or-Die can bypass all of this. In your system, it doesn't matter if the BBEG is at 1 Mental point left if his Physical runs out first, meaning that Mental damage is, ultimately, meaningless.


Slow-healing scores: wizards take Physical damage just like fighters do. And Mental damage. The faster healing rate of Metaphysical doesn't give wizards more Physical power (closest relation to hit points), just more Metaphysical breathing room.

Fair enough.


Damage pool, rule 103.1.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/damage

Explains how damage works, but not how you determine when you deal it or how much you deal. So, ultimately, not useful for determining the effectiveness of the combat system.


Hero points: I like your ideas. Gonna work on incorporating them. (If you don't mind)

Go ahead. I wouldn't suggest it if I weren't okay with you using it. :smalltongue:


Skill list: intentionally generic, to facilitate modification. The skills-per-level can be increased, or I've been looking at classes that grant more (and directed) skill points. Or characters can just start higher than first level.

A generic skill list with some pre-determined skills and mostly freeform skills is...fragmented. I'd recommend either making a "core" skill list that uses a certain skill point pool and then another freeform list for less system-crucial skills that uses a different pool. If that doesn't work, I'd recommend either entirely freeform or entirely pre-determined skills: this hybrid method is awkward at best.


Taking 10: it would take a result or two to know if you have +2 on your opponent, right? Anyway, I'm not seeing how it's always better, because it does thwart your opponent's attempt to take 10, but he can still choose to roll for one of those coveted 13s-and-higher.

It reduces the chance for a poor roll to mess you up. With a +2 bonus on your opponent you can force them to roll a 13 or higher every time. While you may miss out on becoming untouchable with a strong roll, you have to consider this:

Your bonus is higher. Thus, your high roll against their low roll is unnecessary. Your low roll against their high roll, however, matters. Equal rolls swing in your direction. So your best bet is to minimize your chances of rolling low: forcing them to a 13 or better is giving them only a 40% chance of success against you, while also minimizing the chances of your low roll messing yourself up. Probably always the best option.

DMMike
2013-03-01, 03:07 PM
This, however, is extremely bad. It means that a large portion of the party is doing nothing to contribute to the BBEG's demise, as only one pool of damage (the one that eventually brings him down) actually matters. It's the reason Save-or-Dies are so annoying in D&D 3.5: no matter how much HP damage the target has taken, a Save-or-Die can bypass all of this. In your system, it doesn't matter if the BBEG is at 1 Mental point left if his Physical runs out first, meaning that Mental damage is, ultimately, meaningless.

I'm hearing that damage of one type is pointless if you can do more damage of another type, faster. Which is true. But,
1) it doesn't make other characters useless, because other party members can buff/assist teammates, cast spells that have effects other than damage, or serve as protectors/lures.
2) offering Physical and Mental (Metaphysical might require high levels, divine magic, or undeath) ways to defeat enemies means the heroes will have to strategize a bit. "Both can be damaged, but which is easier?"



Explains how damage works, but not how you determine when you deal it or how much you deal. So, ultimately, not useful for determining the effectiveness of the combat system.

Granted. Dealing damage is currently slated to appear in Physical rules (as combat), and under each spell and weapon description.



A generic skill list with some pre-determined skills and mostly freeform skills is...fragmented. I'd recommend either making a "core" skill list that uses a certain skill point pool and then another freeform list for less system-crucial skills that uses a different pool. If that doesn't work, I'd recommend either entirely freeform or entirely pre-determined skills: this hybrid method is awkward at best.

Listed skills + unlisted skills = confusion. Got it. Do you think I should just offer the core list, and leave any reference to free-form skills in the Modules (modification) section?



It reduces the chance for a poor roll to mess you up. With a +2 bonus on your opponent you can force them to roll a 13 or higher every time. While you may miss out on becoming untouchable with a strong roll, you have to consider this:

Your bonus is higher. Thus, your high roll against their low roll is unnecessary. Your low roll against their high roll, however, matters. Equal rolls swing in your direction. So your best bet is to minimize your chances of rolling low: forcing them to a 13 or better is giving them only a 40% chance of success against you, while also minimizing the chances of your low roll messing yourself up. Probably always the best option.

My preliminary math says there's no (significant) difference between saying "let's each roll a d20. The higher roller wins, and if we tie, we'll reroll." And, "Roll a d20. If you get higher than 10.5, you win. Otherwise, I win." In fact, you're less likely to win if you take 10, because that's less than the average roll (on a d20).

Throw in the +2 bonus. If one side rolls 1, and adds +2, then he beats the defender if the defender rolls 2 or 1. If he rolls 3, and they reroll, he's still more likely than not to win on the reroll.

Now look at the +2 guy rolling 19 or 20. The defender has no chance to win.

Is the difference between one side taking 10 any different from both sides rolling, statistically?