Analyzing Tabletop RPGs: To Create a System Easy/Deep/Broad/Fast/Tactical/Social

[Morph Bark]

As a DM, I have a party that has gone from 2, to 6, and even to 7 players. Our current group has 6 players, and I may even end up with more in the future. Because turns take time, and during role-play segments not everyone can take part at once, players often get distracted, even during the times I've banned laptops from the table (save one, to allow them to look up stuff in the SRD or from Homebrew we use, and for background music).

I believe this is partially because things go slowly. As I was already thinking of making a tabletop roleplaying game, I figured "why not make something that goes faster?"

So I decided to make myself a list of goals to accomplish to start with, and go from there.
Play should be paced fast. The main aid is this that players should be able to make their decisions quickly. The best way to do this is to limit the options that they have at any given time.
Players should have a lot of options overall. They should be able to tackle a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of ways, rivalling that of Tier 3 DnD classes at the very least. To make it so that this goal doesn't clash with the first, players should be able to change (some of) their available options between encounters.
The basic rules shouldn't be hard to understand or complex, allowing a GM to keep 2-3 sheets with rules to reference without needing to have a whole book on hand. However, the system as a whole shouldn't be rules-light. It should require some investment of time and energy, and indeed reward mastery of the system, without making newer, less skilled players feel overshadowed. This ties in with the "lots of options to take, but limited at any one time", which also means players will have to make tactical and strategic decisions in what to take when.
The rules should be intuitive. Basic abilities should each cover a single aspect or task that a character can do or be good at. The system should favour a gamist approach over a simulationist one, while not neglecting any narrativist approaches. Partially to facilitate a narrativist approach, there should be mechanics that reward players describing their actions in more detail beyond the basics.
I like the structure that class/level-based systems give, but also like the freedom of systems that don't use those conventions. For this reason, I want to take the middle road of using "skill trees" of sorts. How to do this exactly, I haven't figured out yet.
Making sure there are many options will be lots of work. For this reason, I thought of simply taking inspiration or even direct things from other systems, especially DnD. If possible, I want to create ways to convert DnD material to this new system, but this is only as a goal to look at later. I want to keep it in mind, and thus am telling it from the start, but it's definitely not a main goal as all the others above here are.

I think that's all for now.


EDIT: I am now going through several tabletop RPGs, identifying their good and bad points, and seeing what I can learn from them and take along in the ride for the creation of this new system. A list of analyzed systems is here. Some don't have links yet and have yet to be analyzed. After their names and links is a short list of things that could be interesting or good to use in this new system. Some games may be removed later on from the list if they had nothing interesting or good to offer.
Arkham Horror
Basic Role-Playing (BRP): 2008 edition, Call of Cthulhu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16570780#post16570780) (Skill increases, Parry rules)
d6 System (list of books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D6_System_books))
Dragon Age (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16531639#post16531639) (Focus, Stunts, Backgrounds)
Edge of the Empire*
FATE*
Gamma World*
GUMSHOE: Trail of Cthulhu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16628983#post16628983) (Stability, Investigative skills)
Ironclaw: Squaring the Circle
Megaversal/Palladium system: Dead Reign, Mechanoid Invasion, Ninjas & Superspies, Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game, Rifts, Splicers
MEGS: Blood of Heroes, DC Heroes, Underground
Old School Hack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16541531#post16541531) (Awesome Points)
Song of Ice and Fire
True20

*These systems have been recommended to me to take a good, close look at by posters in this thread, and that I haven't gotten to yet. I really should.

Adventure:
7th Sea (R&K system)
Contenders
Dark Champions (HERO System 5)
Fiasco
Hollowpoint
Lady Blackbird
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying
Savage Worlds Deluxe Edition
Spirit of the Century

Animals:
Mouse Guard

Childhood:
Grimm
Monsters and Other Childish Things
Norwegian Style

Corporations:
Nova Praxis

Crime:
Ashen Stars
Over the Edge
The Dresden Files Roleplaying Game

Culture:
Ars Magica 5th edition
Feng Shui
Legend of the Five Rings 4th edition (R&K system)
- Legend of the Burning Sands
Microscopes

Fantasy:
13th Age
Dungeons & Dragons (5th Edition)
Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game
Dungeon World
Earthdawn 4th edition
HeroQuest (2nd Edition)
Nobilis
Numenera
Pendragon (5th Edition)
Rolemaster 4th edition
Scion (Hero, Demigod, God)
The Burning Wheel Gold
The One Ring Roleplaying Game
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (1st edition? 2nd? 3rd?)

History:
Aces & Eights
Castle Falkenstein
Deadlands: Reloaded
Hollow Earth Expedition
RuneQuest (3rd Edition?)
The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Horror:
Cthulhutech
Dread
The Shab Al-Hiri Roach
Unknown Armies (2nd Edition)

Modern:
Alternity
d20 Modern
Don't Rest Your Head
Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at Utmost North
Primetime Adventures (1st/2nd/3rd Edition?)

Multiverse:
Amber Diceless Roleplaying

Religion:
Dogs in the Vineyard
Montsegur 1244

Science Fiction:
Apocalypse World
Cyberpunk 2020
Diaspora
Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space
Eclipse Phase
Paranoia (edition?)
Star Wars: Edge of the Empire
Star Wars: Age of Rebellion
Star Wars: Force and Destiny
The Star Wars Roleplaying Game - Revised Edition (1996)
Traveller

Storytelling system:
The (new) World of Darkness
Changeling: The Lost
Demon: The Descent
Geist: The Sin-Eaters
Hunter: The Vigil
Mage: The Awakening
Mummy: The Curse
Promethean: The Created
Vampire: The Requiem
Werewolf: The Forsaken

Warhammer 40k:
Black Crusade (2011)
Dark Heresy 2nd edition (2014, original 2008)
Deathwatch (2010)
Only War (2012)
Rogue Trader (2009)

Retroclones:
Labyrinth Lord
Lamentations of the Flame Princess

[erikun]

What systems are you familiar with? Because it seems like some other non-D&D, rules-heavy systems might actually work fine for what you are looking for. Dragon Age and Iron Kingdoms are two that immediately come to mind, although I'm not familiar enough with either to really recommend much about them.

Looking over your goals, the biggest concern I have is that you seem to want wildly divergent aspects in the same system. You want lots and lots of options available to players but only a few options available. You want a whole bunch of rules that are quick and easy to understand. You want classes and levels but can still pick and choose the skills and abilities gained. I'm not saying that such different goals are impossible in the same system, just that it would require a lot more work to accomplish them both than to just accomplish one or the other.

What is the ONE goal that you want to achieve? What is the ONE thing that you want the system to accomplish?

The easiest way would be to find one system that does most of what you want well, and then work at modifying it from there.

[BWR]

So basically you want a system that does everything perfectly even if it's self-contradictory in several goals? Easy and complex at the same time. Sure, you may argue that the two are not per definition constradictory, but that's what they end up being in practise. The more complexity you have, the more you have to remember or look up. The more options, the more opportunity for error. You want players to have options, but not have options?
I suspect you mean you want lots of options in character creation but limited options available in play - no encyclopedia of class features to remember.

You might want to check out the R&K system used in Legend of the Five Rings (and another variant found in the olf 7th Sea game)

- it's a mix between level and levelless. You increase Skills and Attributes independantly of level, but when you reach a certain number (culculated off those) you gain a Rank, which is basically a level.
- It has classes schools, which grant various benefits. There are three major types: caster, warrior and courtier, each with numerous variations.
- While social combat is lacking, there is a simple (too simple?) system for social interaction.
- there is a very simple mass combat system which focuses on the characters in combat rather than making it into a wargame.
- The basic mechanics are pretty easy. Once you understand the basics of R&K, which is pretty easy, the rest is mostly details. you will want to keep the core rulebook with you at all times, but most of the important information you will constantly be referencing can easily be placed on a couple of sheets of paper (or on the hand GM screen they have).
- magic is powerful, but limited. Casters are awesome but can't really become godlike the way they do in D&D. Warriors remain releveant at all levels of play. You can theoretically learn all spells in the game but realistically have only a small selection. You have spell slots but can cast any spell you know. You could do the equivalent of blowing all your slots on 9th level spells if you choose.

The cons are that while the basics of the system are picked up easily, there are details that usually need a little play to get. Also, the system is tied very tightly to the setting. Some of the mechanics, such as Honor and Taint, will probably be less useful for a more traditional fantasy game, and there are several schools and skills and spells that work off these, so you will either need to do some fixing or ignoring. the Alderac Entertainment Group boards have some homebrew for adapting the system to more generic settings, but I haven't really looked at them to see what they're like.

[Grinner]

So basically you want a system that does everything perfectly even if it's self-contradictory in several goals? Easy and complex at the same time. Sure, you may argue that the two are not per definition constradictory, but that's what they end up being in practise. The more complexity you have, the more you have to remember or look up. The more options, the more opportunity for error. You want players to have options, but not have options?

This isn't entirely true. Through emergent complexity, it's possible to have a system that provides a wide variety options while still being comprehensible to the unaided mind.

However, as erikun said, such a system wouldn't be easy to design. At their simplest, every emergently complex system is defined by the interaction of a number of smaller systems. Sudoku is a good example. Through just three simple rules, a wide variety of interactions form. It's difficult to gauge how a particular rule would interacts with others though, so the system requires a large degree of legwork or plain inspiration to develop.

The other downside is that such a system is difficult to playtest. System mastery, gained through exploration of the possibility space, reigns supreme in such games. Further, once an exploit is discovered, it's difficult to correct, since the nature of emergent complexity is a delicate ecosystem of interaction. Change one thing, and you change everything.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I believe this is partially because things go slowly. As I was already thinking of making a tabletop roleplaying game (possibly as part of my challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16513627)), I figured "why not make something that goes faster?"

Cool. Color me interested, at least conceptually: you're an accomplished homebrewer whose work I enjoy and respect, so, if you're looking to actually make a project, I'd be happy to lend a hand.


Play should be paced fast. The main aid is this that players should be able to make their decisions quickly. The best way to do this is to limit the options that they have at any given time.

This also makes me think that a fast and universal resolution mechanic is probably best. One of the issues of, say, D&D is the sheer number of rolls necessary to accomplish an action. Then we have things like FATE, where everything is done with a single type or roll and usually resolved with one or two rolls, tops.

The latter seems a bit more like something we want, although we'll want to make sure the resolution mechanic is meaty enough to attach complexity to.



Players should have a lot of options overall. They should be able to tackle a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of ways, rivaling that of Tier 3 DnD classes at the very least. To make it so that this goal doesn't clash with the first, players should be able to change (some of) their available options between encounters.

Tier 3 can be done with a fairly simple set of mechanics: the Tome of Battle classes aren't particularly hard to run, hit low Tier 3, and only require keeping track of, say, 15-25 abilities. The Warlock is another great example within this power range.

I'm hesitant about the latter half: unless you have a very good reason for modular abilities on a character they feel...odd, honestly. Again, Tome of Battle does a pretty decent job with this sort of thing, but I imagine a Warlock-style system (having all abilities at all times) would be sufficient.


The basic rules shouldn't be hard to understand or complex, allowing a GM to keep 2-3 sheets with rules to reference without needing to have a whole book on hand. However, the system as a whole shouldn't be rules-light. It should require some investment of time and energy, and indeed reward mastery of the system, without making newer, less skilled players feel overshadowed. This ties in with the "lots of options to take, but limited at any one time", which also means players will have to make tactical and strategic decisions in what to take when.

This is trickier. This way lies the path of 4e, which tried to do exactly this. I imagine it can be done, but it's a very tricky balance.


The rules should be intuitive. Basic abilities should each cover a single aspect or task that a character can do or be good at. The system should favour a gamist approach over a simulationist one, while not neglecting any narrativist approaches. Partially to facilitate a narrativist approach, there should be mechanics that reward players describing their actions in more detail beyond the basics.

Alright. Let's rank this system: You have 20 points to divide between Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist. How do you divide those points? This can give us a good idea of how much weight we want to place on each of these separate elements.


I like the structure that class/level-based systems give, but also like the freedom of systems that don't use those conventions. For this reason, I want to take the middle road of using "skill trees" of sorts. How to do this exactly, I haven't figured out yet.

Be warned that this can sometimes also feel limiting. It works somewhat in complex trees like that of Path of Exile (where there is only one tree and different starting areas), but otherwise (see the new Edge of the Empire game) skill trees can feel...flat and lifeless, I guess. In other cases skill trees end up feeling like classes.

There's potential in such a system, but we'd need to analyze approaches rather carefully.


Conclusion
This seems like a fun (if daunting) project. I'm a bit concerned that some of the goals are mutually exclusive (or, at least, will compromise the intent of other goals), but I'm curious to explore the ideas a bit more.

[Chronologist]

Here's some advice I have for your system, just based on your main objectives.

1) Fast Play -> One Decision per Round. Limit characters to one major decision (attack, use a power, defend, etc), and perhaps one minor decision (move, do something minor like drop something or open a door). Fewer decisions per round mean faster turnover between turns, hence faster play.

2) Large # of Options -> Broad character creation. Let players select from a wider variety of abilities and options than, say, D&D 3.5 or 4E would give you. This means they can specialize at doing one thing really well while conceivably being decent at 2-3 other things.

3) Simple Basic Rules -> Remove derived abilities. Someone wants to be more accurate? Improve their Accuracy bonus. Someone want to be tougher? Increase their Hit Points. In D&D 3.5, your average Skill is 1d20 + Attribute bonus (derived further from your actual attribute) + Skill ranks (compounded with trained or untrained costs) + Feat bonus + skill synergy bonus + racial bonus + circumstantial bonus or penalty + Etc. Instead, have it be xdx + Skill bonus, or dice equal to your skill if you're using dice pools. Want to know more about something? Improve your skill, not your derived values.

4) Intuitive Rules -> Consolidate rolling and resolution mechanics. For example, look at the Dragon Age TRPG. One Defense value, and all rolls are 3d6 + Bonus, which is written plainly on your character sheet. Damage is different, but still just uses xd6 + bonus. The fewer types of dice and the fewer types of rolls you have to make, the better. World of Darkness does pretty well with its xd10, 8+ is a success, more successes = better system.

5) Skill Trees -> Well, make Skill Trees! Start with a basic ability (like, say, Fire). With one ability learned you could deal fire damage with a melee attack. Then you could have a number of abilities in the tree you could learn - gaining fire resistance, igniting your weapon on fire for extra fire damage, tossing the fire at one target at range, having these effects target multiple allies/enemies etc. If you have all of these Skill Trees either have uses per day or run on a consolidated resource system (like Mana or Fatigue or something) you've got tons of customization. You could make some trees Active, some Passive, some a mix of the two, and you can make some of them unique to specific classes if you want to reinforce that notion.

6) Drawing from many Sources -> Look at all the different mechanics in D&D! There's AEDU in 4E, and in 3E there's Maneuvers, Spell Slots, Power Points, Spell-Like Abilities, Invocations, Vestige Binding, Soulmelds, Rage/Enhanced States... there are TONS of ways to approach resource management in and out of combat. Find one or more you like and adapt them to your system. If none of them appeal to you, make up a new system! I made up one, called the Stamina System, that gave players a small pool of points they could redeem for additional damage dice, higher DCs, and damage reduction in combat. It moved things along faster and had players focus on quick, thrilling fights.

That's all I have for now, good luck!

[Morph Bark]

First, to provide a frame of reference:

What systems are you familiar with? Because it seems like some other non-D&D, rules-heavy systems might actually work fine for what you are looking for. Dragon Age and Iron Kingdoms are two that immediately come to mind, although I'm not familiar enough with either to really recommend much about them.

I'm familiar with D&D 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, Star Wars SAGA Edition, d20 Modern, Exalted, and to a lesser degree Strands of Fate, Mutants & Masterminds, and a few hands full of rules-light systems. I also feel like there's at least one I'm forgetting, but that's not as important. I am most familiar with 3.5, including extensively with tons of homebrew, such as my own, my players', and those of literally hundreds of other people. 3.5 and other d20 games are my strongest point of reference, but Exalted provides a good contrast, and therefore I'll mostly be referencing 3.5, 4E, and Exalted.


Now, let me tackle the big question everyone's asking first:

Looking over your goals, the biggest concern I have is that you seem to want wildly divergent aspects in the same system. *You want lots and lots of options available to players but only a few options available. *You want a whole bunch of rules that are quick and easy to understand. *You want classes and levels but can still pick and choose the skills and abilities gained. *I'm not saying that such different goals are impossible in the same system, just that it would require a lot more work to accomplish them both than to just accomplish one or the other.

So basically you want a system that does everything perfectly even if it's self-contradictory in several goals? Easy and complex at the same time. Sure, you may argue that the two are not per definition constradictory, but that's what they end up being in practise. The more complexity you have, the more you have to remember or look up. The more options, the more opportunity for error. You want players to have options, but not have options?
I suspect you mean you want lots of options in character creation but limited options available in play - no encyclopedia of class features to remember.

This seems like a fun (if daunting) project. I'm a bit concerned that some of the goals are mutually exclusive (or, at least, will compromise the intent of other goals), but I'm curious to explore the ideas a bit more.

So basically, it looks like the goals are contradictory. True, I can definitely see that. It's not something I hadn't given thought before posting this, however.

Lots of options available to players, but few at once: By this I mean something like Tome of Battle, something which Djinn already pointed out. For those not familiar with it (lurkers and posters alike), it gives a characters the ability to use a selection of powers they learn, but they can't use all of them at any one time. They are limited to a number of "readied" abilities. They can change these abilities with 5 minutes rest, however. (Or maybe it was even just 1 minute.) Another example is a DnD 3.5 wizard who knows lots of spells, but only has a relatively small amount in his spell slots at any one time, available to cast. The difference here is that a wizard cannot change his spells readied as quickly, with only a handful of mostly obscure exceptions.

A complex system that is easy to understand: Grinner was quite right in his explanation of this idea, with the concept of emergent complexity (though I admit I had no word for it, so thank you for using it). I am thinking of making most of the basic rules quite simple and easy to reference, as is the case with 4E. However, to add to that, I want to add complexity in the options and power choices that players can make in their character builds, allowing for complex characters in a simple system. I want to further facilitate easy use, by creating power cards with their descriptions. Tome of Battle had that online, and it's very handy to have, especially for a Crusader, but even for abilities in general, so you don't have to keep a book open at all times. 4E also had power cards, which came with miniatures, but they were random. I want them to be integrated into the system. Perhaps one of the skill trees could even utilize these cards as a special mechanic.

Basically a kind of multiple levels of complexity. In 3.5, the problem is that with the basic rules there's tons of things to remember, which makes it so that it takes a while to learn. I started playing as a DM with two players in 2007 without ever having played it before, and only having heard of it months before that. It took us a few months to grasp the rules to play well, and several years later we still found little things in the basic rules that we hadn't ever noticed before. (Just a few months ago I was told that cure spells heal an equal amount of nonlethal and lethal damage, for instance.) 4E doesn't have that as much, by far, but it also feels very different. In 4E, you have options to choose from, but you can't ever change them unless you level up or something special happens, which is the case in 3.5. It might be that DnD Next is doing something great that I might need to look into, but the first things I've seen of it and heard of it through the boards and friends have given me the idea that it doesn't really depart from 3.5 or 4E in a meaningful way.


What is the ONE goal that you want to achieve? What is the ONE thing that you want the system to accomplish?

Well, this question is really a broad one, despite how narrow and focused it may seem. The ONE goal I want to achieve is that I want myself and my players to have fun. Most of the goals are in service to that. I believe it'll be easier to keep us in the game and keep having fun if it keeps us engaged, which is why I want it to be fast-paced. I want it to be easy to understand so that the players in my group who don't want to read tons of rules or don't have a head for that don't need to read a big book or spend several months' worth of sessions slowly learning the rules. 2/3rds of the group started with 4E, and still play 4E on weekends that we don't play 3.5 with all 7 of us, but it still took a campaign to fully teach them 3.5. They're having a blast and love all the options, especially with homebrew, which is why that is something I want to keep; and also why I want to--if possible--find a way to convert 3.5 material to this new system.


The easiest way would be to find one system that does most of what you want well, and then work at modifying it from there.

3.5 does the options well, 4E does the basic rules well. I'd love to check out more systems to see what they do well that fits with the goals I've set for myself, so that I can combine the bits. Skill trees and basic stats as they are in Exalted look very promising and easy-to-use to me, for one.


You might want to check out the R&K system used in Legend of the Five Rings (and another variant found in the olf 7th Sea game)

- it's a mix between level and levelless. You increase Skills and Attributes independantly of level, but when you reach a certain number (culculated off those) you gain a Rank, which is basically a level.
- It has classes schools, which grant various benefits. There are three major types: caster, warrior and courtier, each with numerous variations.
- While social combat is lacking, there is a simple (too simple?) system for social interaction.
- there is a very simple mass combat system which focuses on the characters in combat rather than making it into a wargame.
- The basic mechanics are pretty easy. Once you understand the basics of R&K, which is pretty easy, the rest is mostly details. you will want to keep the core rulebook with you at all times, but most of the important information you will constantly be referencing can easily be placed on a couple of sheets of paper (or on the hand GM screen they have).
- magic is powerful, but limited. Casters are awesome but can't really become godlike the way they do in D&D. Warriors remain releveant at all levels of play. You can theoretically learn all spells in the game but realistically have only a small selection. You have spell slots but can cast any spell you know. You could do the equivalent of blowing all your slots on 9th level spells if you choose.

The cons are that while the basics of the system are picked up easily, there are details that usually need a little play to get. Also, the system is tied very tightly to the setting. Some of the mechanics, such as Honor and Taint, will probably be less useful for a more traditional fantasy game, and there are several schools and skills and spells that work off these, so you will either need to do some fixing or ignoring. the Alderac Entertainment Group boards have some homebrew for adapting the system to more generic settings, but I haven't really looked at them to see what they're like.

That looks promising! Thanks! I'll be sure to check it out and give it a good read-through. I'm a little bit familiar with the setting through Oriental Adventures and owning two Rokugan books, so that should help me ease into it and learn from it and pick what I need and can use from it. :smallsmile:


This isn't entirely true. Through emergent complexity, it's possible to have a system that provides a wide variety options while still being comprehensible to the unaided mind.

However, as erikun said, such a system wouldn't be easy to design. At their simplest, every emergently complex system is defined by the interaction of a number of smaller systems. Sudoku is a good example. Through just three simple rules, a wide variety of interactions form. It's difficult to gauge how a particular rule would interacts with others though, so the system requires a large degree of legwork or plain inspiration to develop.

The other downside is that such a system is difficult to playtest. System mastery, gained through exploration of the possibility space, reigns supreme in such games. Further, once an exploit is discovered, it's difficult to correct, since the nature of emergent complexity is a delicate ecosystem of interaction. Change one thing, and you change everything.

The difficulty in playtesting will be tough, yeah. Especially to ensure that system mastery only makes it so you get better tools to work with, rather than increase power, especially exponential power increases as there are several of in 3.5.

I recall there being an episode of Extra Credits that talked about this sort of thing. I should really look it up and re-watch it. There's also another Extra Credits episode on complexity versus depth, and perhaps I am better served by the use of the word "depth" rather than "complexity" here.

Basically, I want a pool that's lots of fun to swim in, with a slow slope from the shallow end to the deep end, rather than a pool that's also a maze.


Cool. Color me interested, at least conceptually: you're an accomplished homebrewer whose work I enjoy and respect, so, if you're looking to actually make a project, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

Thank you for the compliments. :smallsmile:


This also makes me think that a fast and universal resolution mechanic is probably best. One of the issues of, say, D&D is the sheer number of rolls necessary to accomplish an action. Then we have things like FATE, where everything is done with a single type or roll and usually resolved with one or two rolls, tops.

The latter seems a bit more like something we want, although we'll want to make sure the resolution mechanic is meaty enough to attach complexity to.

I'm somewhat familiar with Strands of Fate, which I believe is a FATE derivative. I'll read a little more into FATE to familiarize myself more with it. I'm thinking for this I want to stick with one die type for ease of it, or maybe two (d6 and d20), but leave it at that.


Tier 3 can be done with a fairly simple set of mechanics: the Tome of Battle classes aren't particularly hard to run, hit low Tier 3, and only require keeping track of, say, 15-25 abilities. The Warlock is another great example within this power range.

I'm hesitant about the latter half: unless you have a very good reason for modular abilities on a character they feel...odd, honestly. Again, Tome of Battle does a pretty decent job with this sort of thing, but I imagine a Warlock-style system (having all abilities at all times) would be sufficient.

My first idea (which I've had several times, for widely different reasons each time) was to just limit my players to ToB classes, Invokers and Binders. :smalltongue: That doesn't solve all the little issues, though.

I'm not sure how I will do the option-switching precisely, but I wasn't planning on doing it without good reason in both fluff and crunch. If I go with various skill trees, I'll likely make it so the reasons and ways to switch and how much can be switched be different, similar to the various magic subsystems of 3.5, in particular ToB, Invokers, Binders and Meldshapers.


Alright. Let's rank this system: You have 20 points to divide between Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist. How do you divide those points? This can give us a good idea of how much weight we want to place on each of these separate elements.

Hmmm, a good question. I think at least more than half in Gamist, at least two thirds in Narrativist, and just a little over the bare minimum in Simulationist.

Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist: 11/7/2. I think that's a good spread of it.


Be warned that this can sometimes also feel limiting. It works somewhat in complex trees like that of Path of Exile (where there is only one tree and different starting areas), but otherwise (see the new Edge of the Empire game) skill trees can feel...flat and lifeless, I guess. In other cases skill trees end up feeling like classes.

There's potential in such a system, but we'd need to analyze approaches rather carefully.

Hmmm. Good point. I'll certainly give it more thought. I don't want it to be a huge skill tree as some video games have (such as Path of Exile), but want it to be several smaller ones, to allow growth, but give choices straight from the beginning in which direction the characters wish to grow. Because I like the various magic subsystems of 3.5 and the many homebrew ones out there, I think I may make each kind of magic that will be part of the system be a seperate skill tree, which then spreads out into its components. I think Exalted may be a good example to take note from (possibly the other White Wolf TRPGs too, I hear they use similar things). I'll check out Edge of the Empire to get a feel for what NOT to do.


EDIT:

Here's some advice I have for your system, just based on your main objectives.

*snip*

That's all I have for now, good luck!

Those are some very good points of advice. I'm sorry I don't have time to address them in detail, but I will do so later. Thank you!

[erikun]

Well, alright then.


Lots of options available to players, but few at once
My suggestion would be to keep things vague enough to cover most of what a player would expect to be capable of, but specific enough that it gives players a clear sense of what they are doing with their action.

For a quick example, if we are talking about combat, I would probably use four options for attacking something: damage, stun, knock down, and grab. Maybe with some modifications, such as using grab for wrestling items away from opponents. This seems better than the very generic "victory points" you get in general systems, where simply rolling better gets you closer to winning regardless and so it doesn't matter if you stabbed somebody or threw a towel over their head. On the other hand, it isn't the overly complex system that D&D3e combat has turned out to be.

For combat specifically, you can look at different methods of using the attacks. One could be the D&D "choose attack, roll, compare to defense." Another could be to roll and compare to the defense, then choose the attack to use: any roll equal or greater than defense could deal damage, or one at defense+2 could knock down instead, or one at defense+4 could choose to grab. (I hope that was clear.) Specific example: Dragon Age uses a 3d6 mechanic, with one die being red. Whenever a roll has doubles, the number on the red die determines what kind of extra actions can be performed, such as extra attacks or moving targets around.


I like the structure that class/level-based systems give, but also like the freedom of systems that don't use those conventions. For this reason, I want to take the middle road of using "skill trees" of sorts. How to do this exactly, I haven't figured out yet.
One idea I've had is to start with what is effectively a skill-based system. Classes, then, get both basic skills leveled automatically and some "bonus skill points" which can be used to improve whatever other skills the player wants. That is, the warrior/knight automatically increases their skills with weapons and perhaps mounted combat, but can spend their extra skills at working with animals, or spotting as a good scout, or even a spell or two. The wizard/mage automatically increases skill in spells, arcane knowledge, and a few weapons like the dagger, but can use their skill points for knowledge in general areas, for surviving when out in the wild, or even for learning to use another weapon.

Just some ideas.

[Grinner]

I think some things should be addressed. While I think how you intend to deal with the speed and complexity of the system is fairly clear, there are other objectives that have not been dealt with.


The basic rules shouldn't be hard to understand or complex, allowing a GM to keep 2-3 sheets with rules to reference without needing to have a whole book on hand. However, the system as a whole shouldn't be rules-light. It should require some investment of time and energy, and indeed reward mastery of the system, without making newer, less skilled players feel overshadowed. This ties in with the "lots of options to take, but limited at any one time", which also means players will have to make tactical and strategic decisions in what to take when.

These two goals don't seem reconcilable. If a player achieves greater system mastery, then his character is going to be better than the other. Period. It's possible that you can split up player responsibilities enough that they don't step on each others toes. However, this tactic only works with systems designed for small groups.

You might also run into the issue of players without system mastery dragging the rest of the group down.

One other thing to keep in mind is option paralysis, encountered by D&D 4e players. Players should be able to do what they need without much redundancy.


Making sure there are many options will be lots of work. For this reason, I thought of simply taking inspiration or even direct things from other systems, especially DnD. If possible, I want to create ways to convert DnD material to this new system, but this is only as a goal to look at later. I want to keep it in mind, and thus am telling it from the start, but it's definitely not a main goal as all the others above here are.

I wouldn't count on it. People like that 3.P has so many character options, but it only has so many because each ability tends to do one specific thing. It creates a large quantity of rules by using inelegant design. This runs contrary to the idea of having a small number of simple, flexible rules.

[toapat]

I feel like sticking to third Edition is largely useless to achieving these goals, at least as far as the correlation would be maintained.

but that is my perspective and here are my 2 cents asto a few changes which, well not themselves fast in their implementation, would streamline the game a bit:

Eliminate Strength, Charisma. One is a non-combat property, the other is a non-measurable idea.

Consolidate the Skill system into related and useful skills. (for instance, Intimidate + Diplomacy + Bluff = Force of Personality)

Grapple. dear god grapple.

Damage Types: Simplify them similar to how league groups damage into magic, physical, or true (unmitigatable). Simplify the math related to defense as well.

Bonuses: cut down to a small number of types or allow free stacking with no types.

Simplify perceptions and how to block them

probably a number of other rules could be simplified without breaking them.

Consolidate Feat Chains

[Just to Browse]

Intelligence is also non-combat and no stat is measurable.

Also, a chunked-down Legend ruleset could be good as a starting point.

[toapat]

Intelligence is also non-combat and no stat is measurable.

Also, a chunked-down Legend ruleset could be good as a starting point.

Str: lifting Weights. However does not actually influence ones real effectiveness in trained combat.

Dex: Reaction time, the boardgame Operation

Con: Results of a standard Physical examination for a basic measure

Int: logic puzzle series, tests.

Wis: complex pattern recognition and extrapolation

Charisma: Non-measurable.

[EnemyTroper]

I just read that you want to keep dice rolls. I was going to suggest getting rid of them entirely. I sadly can't recall who said to limit the actions to one major and one minor but I was thinking the same thing.

The first thing that came to mind was chain attacks. What if you have everything at a fixed value as in the stats. Perhaps the stats can be rolled at the very beginning.

I was also going to suggest to get rid of Itirative attacks. Everyone gets 1 attack. Everyone has their initiative set and that is where it stays until some level up changes it.

As to the point of versatility why not have points that can be allocated to the stats and/or other specialties. In a sense anyone and everyone has the potential to be a wizard or a fighter or a rogue or anything inbetween. As to the level ups you can simply give each character more points.

In a sense you are able to rewire your character if the situation warrants. Surprise rounds would be easy. Just half the surprised peoples initiative and then continue on.

Would that work?

[Morph Bark]

Here's some advice I have for your system, just based on your main objectives.

1) Fast Play -> One Decision per Round. Limit characters to one major decision (attack, use a power, defend, etc), and perhaps one minor decision (move, do something minor like drop something or open a door). Fewer decisions per round mean faster turnover between turns, hence faster play.

That sounds like a good idea to implement. The concept of a full-round action should therefore also be thrown out, though some abilities may warrant the use of both the major and the minor action.


2) Large # of Options -> Broad character creation. Let players select from a wider variety of abilities and options than, say, D&D 3.5 or 4E would give you. This means they can specialize at doing one thing really well while conceivably being decent at 2-3 other things.

I was thinking of making abilities further up a skill tree cost more, so that you could be "level 20" so to speak in one skill, or "level 14" in two. I'd probably go no further than 10 levels/ranks/dots per skill/ability tree though, else it'll get too diluted and vague on where exactly something should be put.


3) Simple Basic Rules -> Remove derived abilities. Someone wants to be more accurate? Improve their Accuracy bonus. Someone want to be tougher? Increase their Hit Points. In D&D 3.5, your average Skill is 1d20 + Attribute bonus (derived further from your actual attribute) + Skill ranks (compounded with trained or untrained costs) + Feat bonus + skill synergy bonus + racial bonus + circumstantial bonus or penalty + Etc. Instead, have it be xdx + Skill bonus, or dice equal to your skill if you're using dice pools. Want to know more about something? Improve your skill, not your derived values.

I'm thankful that most of my players don't go digging around for every little bonus, but it can really get ridiculous in 3.5, and no doubt there are other systems that suffer likewise. Making skills as uncomplicated and easy to see how to improve them is certainly one of the things to strive for.


4) Intuitive Rules -> Consolidate rolling and resolution mechanics. For example, look at the Dragon Age TRPG. One Defense value, and all rolls are 3d6 + Bonus, which is written plainly on your character sheet. Damage is different, but still just uses xd6 + bonus. The fewer types of dice and the fewer types of rolls you have to make, the better. World of Darkness does pretty well with its xd10, 8+ is a success, more successes = better system.

The Storyteller system used in World of Darkness and Exalted is very good with this, and one of the things I wish to take along as an inspiration. LOATHE the combat system though (at least in Exalted). I'll certainly have a look at the Dragon Age TRPG to check that rule out and more.


My suggestion would be to keep things vague enough to cover most of what a player would expect to be capable of, but specific enough that it gives players a clear sense of what they are doing with their action.

For a quick example, if we are talking about combat, I would probably use four options for attacking something: damage, stun, knock down, and grab. Maybe with some modifications, such as using grab for wrestling items away from opponents. This seems better than the very generic "victory points" you get in general systems, where simply rolling better gets you closer to winning regardless and so it doesn't matter if you stabbed somebody or threw a towel over their head. On the other hand, it isn't the overly complex system that D&D3e combat has turned out to be.

For combat specifically, you can look at different methods of using the attacks. One could be the D&D "choose attack, roll, compare to defense." Another could be to roll and compare to the defense, then choose the attack to use: any roll equal or greater than defense could deal damage, or one at defense+2 could knock down instead, or one at defense+4 could choose to grab. (I hope that was clear.) Specific example: Dragon Age uses a 3d6 mechanic, with one die being red. Whenever a roll has doubles, the number on the red die determines what kind of extra actions can be performed, such as extra attacks or moving targets around.

Various basic attack options. Got it. A good idea, and I'll go with the approach of requiring the player to state up front which form of attack they wish to use. That's for the tiny bit of Simulationism, as it's more realistic to have the decision on what to do be up front (seconds before you actually do it), rather than in the split seconds you are doing it.

That "victory points" scenario is definitely something I wish to avoid. I want to reward using different styles of play, not punish creativity by having all actions yield the same results. It's possible it will require a bit of Rule Zero in practical play, but it is already necessary anyway with most systems.

Thank you for your ideas. Some have given some real inspiration on how to work out certain details. :smallsmile:


These two goals don't seem reconcilable. If a player achieves greater system mastery, then his character is going to be better than the other. Period. It's possible that you can split up player responsibilities enough that they don't step on each others toes. However, this tactic only works with systems designed for small groups.

You might also run into the issue of players without system mastery dragging the rest of the group down.

I found one of the Extra Credits videos I was thinking of, specifically Balancing For Skill (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill). While the series is aimed at video games, it's certainly also applicable to tabletop games. For instance, 3.5 was designed with some basic ideas in mind, utilizing healbot clerics, sword-and-board fighters and blaster wizards, and many inexperienced players will play that way. Meanwhile, experienced players have discovered way more powerful ways of play, or others have informed them about those, and they use those ways (though likely not the most powerful ways of play, unless they want to aim for a Tippyverse). However, many of them still play characters focused on sword and board, healing or blasting, but they do so much more effectively due to system mastery.

I simply want to end up with a slightly higher baseline, and a lower ceiling. Instead of, to take 3.5 terminology into it once again, Tier 4-5 as a baseline and Tier 1 as the ceiling, I want Tier 3-4 as a baseline and Tier 2 as a ceiling.


One other thing to keep in mind is option paralysis, encountered by D&D 4e players. Players should be able to do what they need without much redundancy.

Noted.


I wouldn't count on it. People like that 3.P has so many character options, but it only has so many because each ability tends to do one specific thing. It creates a large quantity of rules by using inelegant design. This runs contrary to the idea of having a small number of simple, flexible rules.

Well, maybe not a direct port, at least for most things, like a lot of maneuvers and spells (especially spells) having overlap with higher and lower leveled ones. Inspiration will definitely taken from them though!


Eliminate Strength, Charisma. One is a non-combat property, the other is a non-measurable idea.

I think I will do away with ability scores/attributes completely. I actually thought that Strength might be even possibly turned into a skill itself.


Grapple. dear god grapple.

Is there any system with non-contrived grapple rules?


Damage Types: Simplify them similar to how league groups damage into magic, physical, or true (unmitigatable). Simplify the math related to defense as well.

While I love how simple and clear-cut League of Legends has made damage types, I like the complexity of play that a simple bit of variety in damage types can bring. However, I plan on leaving them very vague in how they work, allowing players to figure out themselves how to utilize them and rationalize the way they work.


Bonuses: cut down to a small number of types or allow free stacking with no types.

Definitely.


Simplify perceptions and how to block them

I like Perception/Awareness as a singular skill, rather than split into Search, Spot and Listen. Possibly Sense Motive could be rolled into it as well.


Consolidate Feat Chains

One homebrew bit I like is Races of War, and I allow each of my players to take one of its scaling feats (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Warriors_with_Style#The_Failure_of_Feats), which effectively eliminate feat chains, in our most recent campaigns. I won't make feats a part of this new system, however, but I want to ensure that abilities scale along with a character's growth, as I believe some feats and certainly maneuvers should do, to ensure that they remain relevant even late in a character's growth.


Also, a chunked-down Legend ruleset could be good as a starting point.

Isn't Legend very much like 3.5 and mostly not that different? I haven't kept up with it, but seeing what its original goal was and all...


I just read that you want to keep dice rolls. I was going to suggest getting rid of them entirely.

May I ask why?


The first thing that came to mind was chain attacks. What if you have everything at a fixed value as in the stats. Perhaps the stats can be rolled at the very beginning.

I was also going to suggest to get rid of Itirative attacks. Everyone gets 1 attack. Everyone has their initiative set and that is where it stays until some level up changes it.

Iterative attacks as they are in 3.5 bog the game down, and more important is that they don't even really work, so they've got to go. Abilities granting the power to make extra attacks when using an attack action will certainly be implemented instead, but I'll need to take care to not make them have the possibility of stacking.

Initiative being set... hmmm, it's something I've considered doing before, to make the start of combat go faster. It kind of reminds me of Pokémon with their set speed. I used to think that was a bit annoying, but I came to see it as pretty handy and simple.

I think for Initiative I will be asking the opinion of my players first before acting (heh). I can imagine rolling for initiative to feel pretty good and a great pre-phase to start for combat.


As to the point of versatility why not have points that can be allocated to the stats and/or other specialties. In a sense anyone and everyone has the potential to be a wizard or a fighter or a rogue or anything inbetween. As to the level ups you can simply give each character more points.

In a sense you are able to rewire your character if the situation warrants. Surprise rounds would be easy. Just half the surprised peoples initiative and then continue on.

Would that work?

I don't really understand what you mean. Could you try and explain this a little more?

[toapat]

I like Perception/Awareness as a singular skill, rather than split into Search, Spot and Listen. Possibly Sense Motive could be rolled into it as well.

you replied to the wrong thing

by perceptions i mean blind sight, tremorsense, low light vision, blindsense, scent, thoughtsense, and any number of other perceptions in the game.


the point of League style Offense is that the abstraction is to allow faster math

[EnemyTroper]

What I mean by points is something similar to tge ozodrins points to focus on certain features, but more in line of the Chameleon's ability to change their focus. The points are for being more specific and more customization. When things look bad for a fighter or a wizard perhaps they reach out and pray to their god. Why shouldn't a god show favor on other classes.

In a sense you shift points into faith and get a different B boon of abilities based on the god and number of points in it. Perhaps pure magic isnt working nor is your honed fighting skills. split tge points between and gish the beastie.

did I explain it better this time?

[Chronologist]

In regards to Fast Play, yeah limiting players to a Major and a Minor action makes things move a lot faster. I use a Major, Minor, and Move system in my own d20 game and it works pretty well - minor actions are seldom used, and people tend to more around the battlefield a lot since it's a grid-based tactical game, so I kept that element in.

For Skill Tree Costs, I'd advise you take a look at Edge of the Empire, a recent star-wars tabletop RPG where every class (and force users) get talent trees they can spend their points on. Each level costs more than the previous one (basically a 1-2-3-4-5-6 cost progression) and later abilities in the chain can improve the effectiveness, scope, and utility of the power in question. There's also a number of passive abilities thrown in there as well, so it's not all powers, which reduces the number of options players have at any given time without restricting their options in character creation.

Making skills and other bonuses simple is a goal in all of my games - I cut out attributes entirely whenever possible and boil it all down to individual modifiers and bonuses. It makes the system much easier to learn when you don't have to check a spreadsheet just to figure out how much damage your attack does.

World of Darkness has a great overall resolution mechanic for non-combat things, but the combat is god-awful. That's why I always like playing Changeling games instead - if you're rolling an attack in Changeling, you're doing it wrong :smallamused:

I think your Tier goals are pretty good - 2-4 is a good range for most games. I think the objective would be to aim for Tier 3, with a small allowance for system mastery to increase the potency of characters (or, conversely, for unfocused or ineffective builds to still be in the Tier 4 range).

Ooh, there IS a system with actually decent grapple rules! Well, not quite, but they're good enough. Gamma World (the recent one released by WotC in the vein of 4E) has the Machine Grip power for Androids, which on a hit Immobilizes both the user and the target until the end of the Android's next turn. If the Android moves after attacking the effect ends, so it basically holds them both in place for a turn. Gamma World, by the way, is a GREAT system if you're looking for something fast and fun to play with a decent amount of flexibility and a really solid core system. You could easily remove Attributes, instead giving characters a set of Skill bonuses and Defense bonuses based on their mutation types.

That's all the advice I have for the moment, but when you start working on your system, give me a shout! I'd love to take a look at it and give you feedback.

[Just to Browse]

Isn't Legend very much like 3.5 and mostly not that different? I haven't kept up with it, but seeing what its original goal was and all...It's much like 3.5, but most content and available actions are level-appropriate, and they have a decent scaling system.

[erikun]

Is there any system with non-contrived grapple rules?
Not that I know of, no. Most are either a mess (like D&D3e) or just an odd status change (like D&D4e).

The biggest problem with grapple (and stunning, for that matter) is that they can be used against the PCs. While it's fun to pin down an opponent and prevent them from doing anything, it's not much fun to be the one pinned down.

My thought would be to simply indicate what actions reasonably can't be done during a grapple. As in, you can't move freely; you either need to break the grab or force the opponent to move with you. You can't attack someone else without breaking the grab. You can't fire ranged weapons, like bows. You can't cast (most) spells.

Note that "grappling" could potentially mean anything from being caught in a kraken's tentacle, down to having spiders crawling up your legs. I'd be more inclined to be more liberal with the potential actions, producing the occasional strange result (smashing a spider on your shin with a warhammer) rather than the overly restrictive results that the D&D3e system had.

[Morph Bark]

you replied to the wrong thing

by perceptions i mean blind sight, tremorsense, low light vision, blindsense, scent, thoughtsense, and any number of other perceptions in the game.

Ahh, I see it now, I replied to the right thing, but I interpreted it incorrectly. I'll certainly keep extra senses to a minimum in the basic game, and make it so any others through abilities are active abilities rather than passive ones, so that they only come into play when a player decides to actually use them and so they or the GM don't have to be continually reminded that that player has them.


What I mean by points is something similar to tge ozodrins points to focus on certain features, but more in line of the Chameleon's ability to change their focus. The points are for being more specific and more customization. When things look bad for a fighter or a wizard perhaps they reach out and pray to their god. Why shouldn't a god show favor on other classes.

In a sense you shift points into faith and get a different B boon of abilities based on the god and number of points in it. Perhaps pure magic isnt working nor is your honed fighting skills. split tge points between and gish the beastie.

did I explain it better this time?

Yes, you did. It's much clearer now. :smallsmile:

The fluff reasons you give an idea for for the changing of options/abilities is a good one. I'll certainly keep that in as a possibility, but I probably won't tie it in too heavily. I mostly want to keep this setting-neutral, or at least capable of being used with more than one setting in mind.


For Skill Tree Costs, I'd advise you take a look at Edge of the Empire, a recent star-wars tabletop RPG where every class (and force users) get talent trees they can spend their points on. Each level costs more than the previous one (basically a 1-2-3-4-5-6 cost progression) and later abilities in the chain can improve the effectiveness, scope, and utility of the power in question. There's also a number of passive abilities thrown in there as well, so it's not all powers, which reduces the number of options players have at any given time without restricting their options in character creation.

I didn't know there was another SW TRPG out there. Sounds like they do their talent trees a bit differently from SAGA. I'll give it a look.


Ooh, there IS a system with actually decent grapple rules! Well, not quite, but they're good enough. Gamma World (the recent one released by WotC in the vein of 4E) has the Machine Grip power for Androids, which on a hit Immobilizes both the user and the target until the end of the Android's next turn. If the Android moves after attacking the effect ends, so it basically holds them both in place for a turn. Gamma World, by the way, is a GREAT system if you're looking for something fast and fun to play with a decent amount of flexibility and a really solid core system. You could easily remove Attributes, instead giving characters a set of Skill bonuses and Defense bonuses based on their mutation types.

Not that I know of, no. Most are either a mess (like D&D3e) or just an odd status change (like D&D4e).

The biggest problem with grapple (and stunning, for that matter) is that they can be used against the PCs. While it's fun to pin down an opponent and prevent them from doing anything, it's not much fun to be the one pinned down.

My thought would be to simply indicate what actions reasonably can't be done during a grapple. As in, you can't move freely; you either need to break the grab or force the opponent to move with you. You can't attack someone else without breaking the grab. You can't fire ranged weapons, like bows. You can't cast (most) spells.

Note that "grappling" could potentially mean anything from being caught in a kraken's tentacle, down to having spiders crawling up your legs. I'd be more inclined to be more liberal with the potential actions, producing the occasional strange result (smashing a spider on your shin with a warhammer) rather than the overly restrictive results that the D&D3e system had.

I'll look into Gamma World for their grappling rules then. I do agree that being pinned or stunned is no fun, but I don't want to take away the threat of it and the option to use it for GMs. Instead, for grappling, I want to make the rules simple and limit some actions (moving especially), while still allowing plenty of ways to deal with it as a PC.

I don't want too big of a difference between players' options and those of their opponents in the game, which is most of the time the case with Exalted, for instance. At least in the basics, I want everything to be the same for everyone. Magic and combat styles can make for the differences.


I'll be reading through some of the suggested tabletop RPGs in the coming weeks and analyzing what I like in them and perhaps want to use for this project. Dragon Age, Edge of the Empire, Gamma World, World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings and FATE. Possibly also 7th Sea, Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer.

[Morph Bark]

Dragon Age
So I've read through the Game Master's Guide and Player's Guide for the Dragon Age TRPG. It was very reminiscent of the d20 system used in DnD, with the d20 being substituted for 3d6--and thus making more of a bell curve in results, making higher DCs (TNs) harder to achieve and lower ones mostly trivial. The abilities are functionally exactly like DnD's ability scores, up to their range (-2 to 4 covers the same range as ability scores of 6 to 19).

I think I'll need to re-read the bit about Hazards in the GMG. It sounded like a decent way to handle them, but also very narrow in their effects as described. I just didn't quite get them upon reading through.

I like the mechanic of the Dragon Die that decides how well you've succeeded with something. It's a nice extra, without making that the only role of that Die. It does seem to me like you could just as well decide the rate of success by how much higher than the DC (TN) you rolled, and it also adds a bit of extra complexity to the game, so while it's a nice feel for a feature, it's a bit unnecessary.

I very much approve of the one-page reference sheet for actions and stunts.

The abilities are well-defined and seperated from one another. In DnD there's always a bit of confusion over "is this Intelligence or Wisdom?", but in Dragon Age, the two are spread across Cunning, Willpower and Perception. Also nice that Magic is it's own ability here, rather than magic depending on different ones. I probably won't be doing it that way, but it's a very simple and straightforward way to implement it and show the magical power of a character.

I like the concept of Focus. They remind me of a similar mechanic in Exalted whereby you could put points into specializations that are sub-sets of certain skills (like Occult or Thrown in Exalted 2.0), but executed in simpler manner.

Combat is well-defined and relatively simple. Easy to understand, to be sure. However, it seems that it's incredibly easy to become practically immune to damage by simply wearing armor that is good enough.

The Stunts are a very good way to add more flair to combat and introduce combat maneuvers, and is the only instance in which I think the Dragon Die truly shines with glorious purpose.


Set 2 has some interesting stuff as well, particularly how it handles the making of poisons and traps. The latter is especially better than in DnD. Set 2 also has Specializations, which appear to be highly similar to 3.5's Prestige classes, but always only 5-level ones. I like that Set 2 also introduces grenades and several stunts that deal with them and poisons. The Role-Playing Stunts are also fun, unique, and seem like they could be pretty hilarious in play. The Exploration Stunts are a bit confusing, as it's not quite clear to me how they should be used (some are, but not all).


Set 3 mostly built further on the things introduced in Set 2, with the addition of special materials, some magic items, and titles. I like how they went further on some (normally) immaterial rewards and gave them a little substance. The special materials aren't that special, though, as they're just a different way of making weapons and armor scale up higher the way magic weapons and armor do in DnD.


Things I may take from this:
The concept of Focus.
The Stunt system.
The Backgrounds.

The Stunt system is exceptionally great, and makes for some real tense and cinematic combat moments. Focus is a good way of keeping skills (or subsets of skills) simple. I certainly won't port Focus directly as-is, but I'll tweak it to fit. The Stunt system could easily be directly ported, I don't think it'd clash too much with anything else, and it keeps things simple and yet allows for great moments.

The Backgrounds are another thing to learn from. Dragon Age doesn't distinguish as much between race and culture, or rather seems to focus more on the latter. For 3.5 I've once created a human race that had its abilities split up between ancestry-related and culture-related. I think I will stick to something like that for this system as a whole.

[Just to Browse]

Those are good things to take from Dragon Age, but remember that stunts are a lot of things to keep track of.

Dragon Age also has a problem of wizards winning everything.

[Morph Bark]

I edited in some stuff to do with Sets 2 and 3. With how Set 2 added quite some, I think Stunts could easily become too much, but some can be removed without missing too much, and the ones introduced in Set 1 are pretty simple and shouldn't provide a big problem.

Wizards winning everything I can easily believe. Not only with how armor reduces damage except for penetrating damage, which a lot of spells seem to do, but also because of the simple fact that it's the only class that gets something extraordinary. And I don't mean in the DnD (Ex) sense, as Rogues and Warriors do get their things, but those two classes are very much alike in many ways, whereas the Wizard is largely an incomparable factor. It's something that nearly always pops up in systems where there is only one class of magic-user. Incomparables are hard to balance, but it's worth taking the time to do that. It's good at least that Green Ronin got the playerbase involved in testing Sets 2 and 3, especially since if their 3rd-party DnD publications are any indication, they have a real shoddy sense of balance.

[Pyromancer999]

If you exclude tactical, maybe, it sounds like World of Darkness could serve you well, if you go with pure mortals or lesser templates, as that's a good power level where everyone can contribute, while still having something of an easy, quick time to create a character, although like many systems Monte Cook has contributed to, it does have some options that are obviously more powerful than others and can reward specialization a bit much.

Otherwise, Shadowrun can be pretty good, even if you're not doing a cyberpunk campaign, although it definitely functions to it's full potential that way. It seems pretty sound from what I've seen, and from friends who have played it, it's not hard to create a new character(whether from tweaking one of the existing pre-made characters or one from scratch), and can be quite tactical and fun.

Both systems could give some stuff to draw upon or even be used with tweaks in your game. Hope this helps.

[Morph Bark]

The thing is, there's an IF in there. IF you go with mortals, and I'd say that standard people are boring to roleplay in a tabletop game. I will be taking a look at World of Darkness, but I take issue with its imbalances and the slow combat that White Wolf holds true to.

I'll take a look at Shadowrun, too, thanks for the recommendation.

I've edited the OP to include a list of tabletop RPG systems that I will look into to analyze and possibly crib stuff from, and I've also marked the ones that have been recommended to me in this thread as ones to look into more than the others. I've also changed the title of this thread to better reflect its current purpose, though it's only a small step on the way to its eventual goal.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Add Old School Hack to your system list. It's a surprisingly robust and innovative D&D-inspired hack-n-slash engine designed to emulate old school dungeon crawls while using modern, rules-light mechanics. Definitely worth a look for the zone system and combat wheel (I forget the actual name of what I've called the combat wheel, but you'll know it as soon as you see it) alone.

[invinible]

You should check out F.A.T.A.L. to see ways not to make an rpg so you don't make the same mistakes.

[Morph Bark]

Old School Hack [link (http://www.oldschoolhack.net/)]


Add Old School Hack to your system list. It's a surprisingly robust and innovative D&D-inspired hack-n-slash engine designed to emulate old school dungeon crawls while using modern, rules-light mechanics. Definitely worth a look for the zone system and combat wheel (I forget the actual name of what I've called the combat wheel, but you'll know it as soon as you see it) alone.

I read through it yesterday within an hour's time at the car garage while waiting for the winter tires to be fixed, so it's certainly quick to read through and pick up.

The entire system is quite basic and simple, which is one way to make a game easy to start with. The classes are very contained and still retain the natures of the old DnD stuff, such as races being classes. The one big notable thing I'd like to get into though is Awesome Points.

A number of Awesome Points, represented by something physical, are put into a bowl (The Bowl) in the center of the table at the start of a session, typically 2.5 times the number of players. Every time someone does something awesome, anyone may give them one of the Awesome Points from The Bowl. Anyone but the player doing the awesome thing, of course. This can go on until The Bowl is empty, at which point nobody can grab Awesome Points from it to give to someone else. However, the DM has access to an unlimited amount of Awesome Points in his so-called "Stack", and he can add one or more Awesome Points to The Bowl at any time, though he is advised to do this sparingly, like only during good developments in the game.

Awesome Points can be spent to do a number of things, but it's mostly just increasing the result of rolls or damage on a successful attack. The party levels up if everyone has spent 12 Awesome Points since their last level-up. This makes Awesome Points probably the defining mechanic of Old School Hack.


Things I may take from this:
Well, it's probably pretty obvious what I could take from this, namely the Awesome Points! Perhaps they could well be combined with the Stunt system from Dragon Age to include it that way. It sounds like a pretty elegant way to add the Stunts in.


I was talking to a friend a while ago about ways to keep players focused on the game even when it's not their turn, and I think Awesome Points might help in that. Other ideas that came up through the conversation was including a lot of benefits from teamwork, and including a competitive, PvP-like mechanic. Not directly PvP, as in PCs fighting each other, but rather them being in competition with one another for certain benefits or achieving their goals, even as they work together. The idea of a kind of "cooperative PvP" of this sort sounds really appealing, though to include PvP in such a manner I'll need to give it great thought on how to work it in.



You should check out F.A.T.A.L. to see ways not to make an rpg so you don't make the same mistakes.

Good idea! And heck, for all I know I might find something in there that is good to take along. :smalltongue:

[Chronologist]

Old School Hack [link (http://www.oldschoolhack.net/)]



I read through it yesterday within an hour's time at the car garage while waiting for the winter tires to be fixed, so it's certainly quick to read through and pick up.

The entire system is quite basic and simple, which is one way to make a game easy to start with. The classes are very contained and still retain the natures of the old DnD stuff, such as races being classes. The one big notable thing I'd like to get into though is Awesome Points.

A number of Awesome Points, represented by something physical, are put into a bowl (The Bowl) in the center of the table at the start of a session, typically 2.5 times the number of players. Every time someone does something awesome, anyone may give them one of the Awesome Points from The Bowl. Anyone but the player doing the awesome thing, of course. This can go on until The Bowl is empty, at which point nobody can grab Awesome Points from it to give to someone else. However, the DM has access to an unlimited amount of Awesome Points in his so-called "Stack", and he can add one or more Awesome Points to The Bowl at any time, though he is advised to do this sparingly, like only during good developments in the game.

Awesome Points can be spent to do a number of things, but it's mostly just increasing the result of rolls or damage on a successful attack. The party levels up if everyone has spent 12 Awesome Points since their last level-up. This makes Awesome Points probably the defining mechanic of Old School Hack.


Things I may take from this:
Well, it's probably pretty obvious what I could take from this, namely the Awesome Points! Perhaps they could well be combined with the Stunt system from Dragon Age to include it that way. It sounds like a pretty elegant way to add the Stunts in.


I was talking to a friend a while ago about ways to keep players focused on the game even when it's not their turn, and I think Awesome Points might help in that. Other ideas that came up through the conversation was including a lot of benefits from teamwork, and including a competitive, PvP-like mechanic. Not directly PvP, as in PCs fighting each other, but rather them being in competition with one another for certain benefits or achieving their goals, even as they work together. The idea of a kind of "cooperative PvP" of this sort sounds really appealing, though to include PvP in such a manner I'll need to give it great thought on how to work it in.




Good idea! And heck, for all I know I might find something in there that is good to take along. :smalltongue:

Yeah, nothing good can come from FATAL. Trust me. That book is a cesspool of misogyny, racism, and rape. The system itself is just AD&D but made even more complicated (aka Fantasy Heartbreaker). There's nothing in there that worth taking away, not even as a cautionary tale.

(awkward cough)

Moving on to Old School Hack, I also read through it just recently (just for this thread, actually). Awesome points are a great experience system in my opinion; other similar systems make players choose between hoarding their points or using them for flashy benefits. Awesome points instead only count as Xp once they're spent, so you're still rewarded in a way for holding on to them, but you're also dissuaded from just hoarding them until a boss shows up (like some other point-based resources I know of).

If you like that method of character advancement, check out Numenera by Monte Cook. XP is handed out when the DM intrudes in your game, and every 4 XP gives you one of four benefits. Once you have all four you've leveled up, and you get your general class benefits for leveling up. It's kind of like E6 in terms of character power and scope; my only issue with the game is that the task resolution mechanics are pretty terrible. You might enjoy it though, since it's pretty simple.

By the way, I'm glad you took a look at the Dragon Age TRPG; I was kind of cautious when I first heard about it, mainly because they split the books up into three sets which I felt was unnecessary. On further reflection I see that they did it to remove unnecessary complexity from the game (though they could have just put all 6 books into one box, honestly).

If Dragon Age has flaws, they'd be these ones:

1) The Stunt system is too random, and players can't access it at will. What if I want to just shove a Hurlock into a ditch? Since it's a Stunt, I'd have to roll an attack and pray for doubles and a high enough Dragon Die. On 3d6, doubles/triples show up 4/9 of the time, but since you also have to actually hit, any roll less than about an 8 is going to be a miss, so it probably comes out to more like a 25% chance. There needs to be a mechanic in place to substitute a damaging attack for a tactical maneuver.

2) Damage doesn't scale as quickly as hit points. You're going to have characters still dealing 2d6+4 damage when they have 25 or 75 total health, which means that in order to keep combat fast you have to balance enemies differently. This feels like the opposite of JRPGs where protagonists have a small amount of HP but deal tons of damage, and it makes the system unwieldy at higher levels.

3) Mages win, not just because their options are better than warriors and rogues, but because they have more options than warriors and rogues When everyone can access Stunts, being good at Stunts is a vertical improvement, not a horizontal improvement. When a mage learns a new spell, they improve both vertically AND horizontally. Plus, mages can get Stunts just like the other classes, which are just as useful for them as they are for anyone else. In short, mages win.

Otherwise I think it's a great game with a fast resolution mechanic and some of the fastest character creation I've seen in a while.

[Morph Bark]

I discovered that there is apparently a 3rd edition of Exalted out as of this year. From the design goals I read here (http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/178551/exalted-3rd-edition-third-time-s-a-charm), it sounds very promising. I prolly should read through those books rather than 2nd Edition.


Moving on to Old School Hack, I also read through it just recently (just for this thread, actually). Awesome points are a great experience system in my opinion; other similar systems make players choose between hoarding their points or using them for flashy benefits. Awesome points instead only count as Xp once they're spent, so you're still rewarded in a way for holding on to them, but you're also dissuaded from just hoarding them until a boss shows up (like some other point-based resources I know of).

If you like that method of character advancement, check out Numenera by Monte Cook. XP is handed out when the DM intrudes in your game, and every 4 XP gives you one of four benefits. Once you have all four you've leveled up, and you get your general class benefits for leveling up. It's kind of like E6 in terms of character power and scope; my only issue with the game is that the task resolution mechanics are pretty terrible. You might enjoy it though, since it's pretty simple.

That part of Awesome Points was what made them really stand out, yeah. It makes their use have more than one layer, so they are a simple mechanic, but with a bit of complexity behind it, a mechanic with depth.

I didn't know there was also a tabletop RPG named Numenera, so I'll certainly check it out. Monte Cook's created a ton of stuff, plus it'll be interesting to compare it to the video game once it's out.


If Dragon Age has flaws, they'd be these ones:

1) The Stunt system is too random, and players can't access it at will. What if I want to just shove a Hurlock into a ditch? Since it's a Stunt, I'd have to roll an attack and pray for doubles and a high enough Dragon Die. On 3d6, doubles/triples show up 4/9 of the time, but since you also have to actually hit, any roll less than about an 8 is going to be a miss, so it probably comes out to more like a 25% chance. There needs to be a mechanic in place to substitute a damaging attack for a tactical maneuver.

I certainly would want the Stunts to be more reliable in use. The only problem I had with them was that you couldn't just use them instead of attacking and dealing damage. That's not too big of a problem though. I'm currently thinking of using the Awesome Points to provide dice that players can rolls alongside attacks to perform Stunts.


2) Damage doesn't scale as quickly as hit points. You're going to have characters still dealing 2d6+4 damage when they have 25 or 75 total health, which means that in order to keep combat fast you have to balance enemies differently. This feels like the opposite of JRPGs where protagonists have a small amount of HP but deal tons of damage, and it makes the system unwieldy at higher levels.

I want to keep damage and health scale at the same rate, of course. The only thing I'm net yet sure of is if I want to go epic (quick/high scaling) or gritty (slow/low scaling) in the mechanics for it. I'm a little torn, as my standard campaign setting can best be described as "gritty epic" (even if the party itself often contrasts that, which provides a nice sort of yin-yang balance).

[Chronologist]

That part of Awesome Points was what made them really stand out, yeah. It makes their use have more than one layer, so they are a simple mechanic, but with a bit of complexity behind it, a mechanic with depth.

I didn't know there was also a tabletop RPG named Numenera, so I'll certainly check it out. Monte Cook's created a ton of stuff, plus it'll be interesting to compare it to the video game once it's out.


I definitely like the idea of 'XP' having a second use as opposed to just leveling up. In my games I like to use them as a kind of 'fateshifting' mechanic where characters can buy better odds on a particular roll of the dice in exchange for a few points (they still get to keep the XP towards advancement of course). You could implement a mechanic where they fade at the end of the session if they're not used (which would definitely keep players from hoarding them.



I certainly would want the Stunts to be more reliable in use. The only problem I had with them was that you couldn't just use them instead of attacking and dealing damage. That's not too big of a problem though. I'm currently thinking of using the Awesome Points to provide dice that players can rolls alongside attacks to perform Stunts.


Some of the Stunts you could probably use in place of an attack action (like pushing someone), but what about the ones that let you target multiple enemies at once with an attack? Those would have to stay purely stunts, probably. Plus, you could totally have Awesome Points (or whatever you use) let you use a Stunt - make just roll the Dragon Die and consider what comes up as the points you get for the Stunt?



I want to keep damage and health scale at the same rate, of course. The only thing I'm net yet sure of is if I want to go epic (quick/high scaling) or gritty (slow/low scaling) in the mechanics for it. I'm a little torn, as my standard campaign setting can best be described as "gritty epic" (even if the party itself often contrasts that, which provides a nice sort of yin-yang balance).

It definitely depends on how you want to situate your game. Too much health compared to enemy damage will make players think they're invulnerable, while too much damage can prevent them from ever leveling up in the first place. Overall I'd recommend something along the lines of 3rd level D&D characters for your weakest player characters - about 15-25 health and attacks dealing somewhere around 4-10 damage each.

Regardless of 'feel', you should aim for damage to increase at about the same rate at health, erring on the side of damage<health. Don't overdo it though - as good as Dragon Age is, levels 2 though 10 you get 1d6+Con hit points per level, averaging about +40 HP by level 10. Characters start with between 20 and 30 HP, and weapon damage doesn't scale up very quickly during those levels.

In my game characters start out about 40 Health and their easily re-usable attacks deal anywhere between 2 and 20, averaging 11 or so. However, characters generally also have armor of some sort, further reducing the damage by about 4-6 points, depending on the character and the type of damage being dealt. However, more powerful attacks tend to average around 16 and 27 damage, respectively, so Armor is less effective against massive strikes. The most durable character in the group, the dedicated 'tank', has 62 Health and 6-8 Armor of every type, but she's also level 6.

[D-naras]

About Stunts and Awesome points (keep in mind the only details that I know about them is what you've said in this thread):

If I get this, Stunts are dependent on the result of the dragon die? If yes, then maybe spend Awesome points to modify the die. Say, if the dragon die rolled a 1 and you wanted 3 for a particular stunt, spend a few Awesome points to treat the result as 3. Finding out how much of a change an Awesome point can cause, depends on the size of the dragon die and the average amount of points a character can have. Maybe give fighter-oid characters temporary Awesome points each combat to use for stunts. Hell, do this for all non-arcane characters. Give them free Awesome points to alter their performance. Magic users can use their magic to mess with the dragon die, so they don't get freebies. This helps differentiate the extraordinaries from the supernatural too.

[Chronologist]

About Stunts and Awesome points (keep in mind the only details that I know about them is what you've said in this thread):

If I get this, Stunts are dependent on the result of the dragon die? If yes, then maybe spend Awesome points to modify the die. Say, if the dragon die rolled a 1 and you wanted 3 for a particular stunt, spend a few Awesome points to treat the result as 3. Finding out how much of a change an Awesome point can cause, depends on the size of the dragon die and the average amount of points a character can have. Maybe give fighter-oid characters temporary Awesome points each combat to use for stunts. Hell, do this for all non-arcane characters. Give them free Awesome points to alter their performance. Magic users can use their magic to mess with the dragon die, so they don't get freebies. This helps differentiate the extraordinaries from the supernatural too.

The problem is you roll the dragon die with your other dice when you make an attack roll, but what if you're not trying to attack your target with a weapon? What if you just want to kick them off a ledge, or grapple them?

One solution might be "You can spend Awesome points equal to the Stunt value of a Stunt to immediately attempt to use that Stunt on a valid enemy, rolling dice normally. If you roll doubles, the Stunt automatically hits and you get half your spent Awesome Points back". With Awesome points being a limited resource, this should make them usable and exciting without letting players do it whenever they want. Also, characters who specialize in a Stunt get a cost reduction in Dragon Age, making it easier for them to pull this off.

[D-naras]

...what if you're not trying to attack your target with a weapon? What if you just want to kick them off a ledge, or grapple them?



That doesn't sound like a stunt to me. Now hitting with a weapon and pushing or grappling in addition to the weapon damage might be stunt-worthy. Pushing and wrestling should be normal attack options, not special events.

How about this (it helps with the many interchangeable choices design goal.)? Say that the stunt die is a d6. Each character can choose a number of stunts from 2 to 6. Then match every stunt with a result of the stunt die. If you want to be performing a particular stunt more often, you match it with more sides of the die. Players should be able to switch their chosen stunts fast, similar to a 3.5 Crusader's readied maneuvers.

Stunting can either be activated by default, or cost Awesome points or whenever you roll doubles. You may also spend Awesome points to shift the stunt die by 1 per point, either higher or lower. So if the stunt you wanted was performed on a 2 and lower and your stunt die results in 3, you spend 1 point to shift it to 2.

You can also change the size of the stunt die. Perhaps fighteroids have a d12 stunt die for combat. Rogueoids have a d6 for combat but a d10 for movement stunts. Mages have a d4 for magic stunts. Wild mages have a d12 and must have 12 stunts at all times. You get the idea.

[erikun]

Well, one thing I note is that you don't need one or the other. You could have attacks that only deal damage, that only knock opponents over, etc. alongside Stunts that do the same thing. That is, if you want to just damage an opponent, you could roll for damage and knock them down if you roll a Stunt. If you want to kick an opponent off a ledge, you could roll to knock them off the ledge and deal some damage if you roll a Stunt.

Some attacks would probably not make sense with Stunts, and should be restricted to just attacks (probably grapple). Some attacks would probably be better as just Stunts and not be attacks that can be freely pulled off (probably stunning).

Also, I'd like to note that "roll doubles and get value X on stunt die" and "roll doubles and get value X on the doubles" is functionally identical, so you wouldn't need a specific stunt die in the system to make the mechanic work.

[Grinner]

I definitely like the idea of 'XP' having a second use as opposed to just leveling up. In my games I like to use them as a kind of 'fateshifting' mechanic where characters can buy better odds on a particular roll of the dice in exchange for a few points (they still get to keep the XP towards advancement of course). You could implement a mechanic where they fade at the end of the session if they're not used (which would definitely keep players from hoarding them.

I like the way WaRP (http://www.atlas-games.com/warp/) does it. Each character has experience dice, and their players can add each experience die to their rolls once per session. These dice can also be spent on improving character traits. It's quite similar to what you're describing, but it's just so damn elegant.


Well, one thing I note is that you don't need one or the other. You could have attacks that only deal damage, that only knock opponents over, etc. alongside Stunts that do the same thing. That is, if you want to just damage an opponent, you could roll for damage and knock them down if you roll a Stunt. If you want to kick an opponent off a ledge, you could roll to knock them off the ledge and deal some damage if you roll a Stunt.

Some attacks would probably not make sense with Stunts, and should be restricted to just attacks (probably grapple). Some attacks would probably be better as just Stunts and not be attacks that can be freely pulled off (probably stunning).

I had a thought. Instead of trying to tackle this weird demarcation puzzle (which I suspect will give unsatisfactory results anyway), let's just avoid it altogether.

What about a gambling mechanic of some kind? Rather than build some needlessly complex simulation of what might happen given various actors of given strengths, perhaps we should try to abstract that all away. Perhaps we should take the opposite approach.

Instead of figuring out what the outcomes of an uncertain number of possible actions might be (each of which can be interpreted in a number of ways), I think we should consider what might be required to achieve a certain result. By determining how much risk certain results entail, you can give the player some odds on them.

In short, instead of selecting an action and watching the consequences unfold, the players should select a result and figure out what they're willing to risk to make it happen.

[Morph Bark]

About Stunts and Awesome points (keep in mind the only details that I know about them is what you've said in this thread)

Regardless of any knowledge you might have, I welcome you to the discussion! I like seeing how you handled the ideas you gave even with the very limited knowledge of the source material.


That doesn't sound like a stunt to me. Now hitting with a weapon and pushing or grappling in addition to the weapon damage might be stunt-worthy. Pushing and wrestling should be normal attack options, not special events.

How about this (it helps with the many interchangeable choices design goal.)? Say that the stunt die is a d6. Each character can choose a number of stunts from 2 to 6. Then match every stunt with a result of the stunt die. If you want to be performing a particular stunt more often, you match it with more sides of the die. Players should be able to switch their chosen stunts fast, similar to a 3.5 Crusader's readied maneuvers.

Hmmm, I think for some things you are on a good train of thought here. I don't want to make mundane combat maneuvers like disarming, tripping and pushing be too random, but the idea of assigning an amount of Stunts to specific results of the die might really work for offensive kinds of magic.


I had a thought. Instead of trying to tackle this weird demarcation puzzle (which I suspect will give unsatisfactory results anyway), let's just avoid it altogether.

What about a gambling mechanic of some kind? Rather than build some needlessly complex simulation of what might happen given various actors of given strengths, perhaps we should try to abstract that all away. Perhaps we should take the opposite approach.

Instead of figuring out what the outcomes of an uncertain number of possible actions might be (each of which can be interpreted in a number of ways), I think we should consider what might be required to achieve a certain result. By determining how much risk certain results entail, you can give the player some odds on them.

In short, instead of selecting an action and watching the consequences unfold, the players should select a result and figure out what they're willing to risk to make it happen.

That kind of sounds like a mechanic I've heard of from one of the Cthulhu games, whereby the player rolls percentile dice and selects a number themselves, which dictates the chance of success and at the same time also dictates the chance of them going insane. It's not the exact same, of course, but from what you're saying it sounds kind of similar.

From what you said at the end there though, it sounds like that would be, to use the DnD equivalent, rolling for your results first, and then thinking of ways to bring down the DC of the check, without knowing what the DC is. I'm a little confused as to your exact meaning in intentions for mechanics for that.

[Grinner]

That kind of sounds like a mechanic I've heard of from one of the Cthulhu games, whereby the player rolls percentile dice and selects a number themselves, which dictates the chance of success and at the same time also dictates the chance of them going insane. It's not the exact same, of course, but from what you're saying it sounds kind of similar.

From what you said at the end there though, it sounds like that would be, to use the DnD equivalent, rolling for your results first, and then thinking of ways to bring down the DC of the check, without knowing what the DC is. I'm a little confused as to your exact meaning in intentions for mechanics for that.

Honestly, I'm a little fuzzy on the details myself. Maybe that's why I'm having trouble putting it into words...

Basically, it's the reverse of an attack in D&D. In D&D, a player might say "I move twenty feet forward and attack the goblin". Assuming he makes his attack roll, he would then roll for damage and add modifiers.

With this mechanic, the player would say something like "I want to kill the goblin"* and "I'm willing to risk severe bodily harm to do so", representing an extremely aggressive move. Taking into account the player character's raw ability compared to the goblin's own martial prowess, the player's "ante", and any circumstances that could work for or against the character (like the presence of additional enemies in close proximity), you could work up some odds of success. From there, it acts pretty much like that CoC mechanic you've described.

Again, I'm not clear on all of the details, like the calculation of the odds of suffering consequences vs being successful, but I think the basic idea is there. It also seems a bit math intensive at the moment, but I'm thinking of ways to simplify or streamline it.

*Or maybe something like "I want to cripple the goblin." I don't know. The idea seems fluid enough; you just select what effects you want to inflict and work backwards from there.

[Morph Bark]

Honestly, I'm a little fuzzy on the details myself. Maybe that's why I'm having trouble putting it into words...

Basically, it's the reverse of an attack in D&D. In D&D, a player might say "I move twenty feet forward and attack the goblin". Assuming he makes his attack roll, he would then roll for damage and add modifiers.

With this mechanic, the player would say something like "I want to kill the goblin"* and "I'm willing to risk severe bodily harm to do so", representing an extremely aggressive move. Taking into account the player character's raw ability compared to the goblin's own martial prowess, the player's "ante", and any circumstances that could work for or against the character (like the presence of additional enemies in close proximity), you could work up some odds of success. From there, it acts pretty much like that CoC mechanic you've described.

Again, I'm not clear on all of the details, like the calculation of the odds of suffering consequences vs being successful, but I think the basic idea is there. It also seems a bit math intensive at the moment, but I'm thinking of ways to simplify or streamline it.

That actually sounds exactly like Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172910), except the Relationship doesn't matter and the Risk vs Reward Judgement is on part of the PC rather than the target. I already figured that to keep things simple I should make attacks and skills function the same way (actually so far it seems only DnD does them differently), so that's something that could be done. It probably is too complicated to GM with every single attack, but perfect for a combat style that exposes the combatant to greater risk to get greater rewards.

[Morph Bark]

Call of Cthulhu 6th Edition
I like how the book opens and contains with a lot of fluff text and explanations, help and guidelines aimed at the playstyle best used for this particular RPG. Some of it is a bit superfluous, but there’s some things in the first few chapters that are very helpful for those who haven’t played this kind of RPG before. It sounds like players coming right out of DnD would have trouble with it, due to the opposite line of thinking involved.

I find it a bit odd that the game has Size as a stat, especially since for all instances of its use it is combined with other stats, so it seems rather unnecessary to have. Intelligence appears to be more like DnD’s Wisdom, whilst Education is more like DnD’s Intelligence, and I actually really like the explanations for them here. “Edu measures information, not necessarily intelligent use of that information.” No Charisma stat, that’s left largely up to player skill, with the mechanics rolled entirely into a stat called Power that is used for magic (and from which you derive their Sanity stat, too). There’s also Appearance, for first impressions and can be used in combination with some skills on characters you’ve just met.

It’s a bit odd and seems unnecessary that several stats are determined differently than others (Int, Size and Edu), but I guess this is meant to show that characters in this game are supposed to be intelligent and educated, or at least moreso than in DnD or other RPGs. I like the backgrounds and occupations being included the way they are, and determining the minimum age of investigators (the term used for PCs). I’m rather amused that the lowest age you can start with is 12 (minimum age is your Edu stat plus 6, and minimum Edu is 6).

There are several stats derived from other stats, such as Sanity from Power, Idea from Intelligence, Luck from Power, and Know from Education. A lot of other things are also derived from these stats, and all derivations are basically of the formula “Stat x [number]”. Most of the time the number is 5, but it differs a lot, and could easily get confusing, I figure. I like the idea behind Idea (using it instead of skills when you don’t know which skill is appropriate), Sanity (great mechanic for adding depth to play), Luck (which functions kind of like Destiny in Edge of the Empire—which I’ve read through but not posted yet—but less reliable, as luck tends to be), and Know (no need for Knowledge skills, as they’re all rolled into one!—though apparently this game still has Knowledge skills), but they could’ve been better executed. Extra rules can make things more complex, but that can add more depth and fun to the game. However, they need to be consistent, and so far they don’t seem to be here. As they can all be written down, in actual play this doesn’t matter so much, but it slows down character creation for sure.

Hit points are an average of Con and Size (could just as easily have been just Con). You go unconscious at 2 hp and die at 0 if you aren’t raised to 1 or more by the end of the next round. You heal 1d3 hp per week, though some skills can also heal 1d3 hp. This goes to show that combat is to be avoided as much as possible, because combat is quite lethal for characters with no more than 18 hp that die at 0.

Starting skills get a number of “occupation points” equal to 20 x Edu, and “personal interest points” equal to 10 x Int. Occupation points can only be put into skills relating to a character’s occupation, whereas personal interest points can go anywhere. Now THIS is something that I really like about this system. It guides character creation towards something, but does so in a natural way. I don’t feel much for skills in their execution, but the way they work in character creation is ingenious and quite elegant. The reason I don’t much like the skill systems execution (each skill point adds 1% chance of success on a d100 roll, a roll of 00 always fails) is that you can’t go beyond. There’s always the same amount of chance of success regardless of how normal or hard the action would be in real life. There’s also no chance at all for characters to go beyond what’s possible in real life without resorting to magic (which drains Sanity), which is normal in a system that focuses on normal people, but records get broken all the time, and humans keep going beyond themselves, so it’s still a bit of a shame to me.

What’s also good with the skills is the natural way in which they improve. If a skill has been successfully used during a session, it’s marked with a check. At the end of a session, the GM (the “Keeper of Arcane Lore”) rolls a d100 for each skill. If the result is higher than the skill, it goes up by 1. This makes it so that skills are easier to improve the less you know of it yet, which is very much in line with real life, and using skills is the only way to increase them during play as well, making it very natural, and it feels good to increase skills this way. Even moreso, acquiring 90% ability in any skill gives bonus Sanity points due to the self-discipline in learning the skill up to that point. This is only for the course of play, so starting out that high gives no bonus, which means starting several skills at 89% might be a very smart thing to do in the long run.

Resistance Table rolls are bad because they use tables. They could’ve better been used like one player (or the keeper) rolling to set the target number required to beat it (the DC if you will) and the player going up against it then rolling to try and beat it.

I like the combat rules, as they make good sense. They could be simplified in some places, but I wouldn’t want them too simplified, as too simple makes a game a little boring mechanically. The falling damage rules are exactly the same as in DnD, as are the dynamite rules (compare DMG page… 160, I believe). Those with drawn firearms effectively get a surprise round.

I like that firearms and pointed weapons can impale a target and deal more damage that way. It gives something extra to their use, and it makes sense, as those weapons do deal more damage than bludgeoning attacks in real life. I like that it has easy to use parry rules and dodge rules, but the parry rules could be simplified a little further, as they function differently for each kind of weapon. The base skill for each weapon is kind of vague on one bit: do you need that amount to start using that weapon, or do you automatically get that base skill amount for each weapon without paying personal interest points at character creation? The same goes for all the other skills. I think it’s supposed to be that everyone has that base amount, so that nearly every skill is technically useable by everyone, unless it’s 00% (like Cthulhu Mythos, which is a skill that cannot be increased as other skills and lowers your Sanity). Many skills also look like they could easily be merged together, both realistically and from a gamist perspective, especially the combat skills.

The Insanity rules are pretty easy to use (indefinite insanity is the hardest part, because it requires a little bit more math), but it seems that the Sanity stat itself has no use at all. Weird.


Things I can take from this:
Skill increases and natural character growth.
Some of the combat rules, in their overall simplicity, at least the Parry rules.

I wonder how it will compare to the d20 version, and to Trail of Cthulhu.

[toapat]

i personally wonder if there is anything one could take from Warcraft D20 (original third based)/World of Warcraft D20 (3.5 Based)

[Chronologist]

So, any progress on this recently Morph Bark? Read any good systems with mechanics you like? Have any ideas for creating your own system? Inquiring minds want to know! :P

[Morph Bark]

There is! For a long while I was delayed, mostly because I was reading several at once, and so I had Edge of the Empire halfway finished before going on with Trail of Cthulhu, and then went this way and that, before really finishing any.


Trail of Cthulhu
Trail of Cthulhu is an RPG focused on investigation, just like Call of Cthulhu. However, in its mechanics, it's very different. Skills are named the same and do the same thing, but they are very different in play, and some even are effectively automatic in how they work. I really like how getting clues works, with simply using the right investigative skill at the right place automatically giving one, and Keepers (GMs) being advised to give the player who needs a moment to shine the most the clue if there is no PC with a very fitting ability for acquiring it.

Keepers are even told to try and keep the DNs (Difficulty Numbers) low when the check is mandatory for an investigation (such as sneaking past a guard in order to get to an art piece to investigate), but to feel free to make it high when it's only optional and the players just ended up going that way or deciding to do something that wasn't necessary to solve the mystery. Another option is to always have the players succeed, but failure means a penalty of sorts, like injury. It's an interesting way to go about things, and fitting with the nature of the game as a more non-combat game than many other RPGs, but even so it feels off for me to do it that way, so I'd likely not use that optional rule. Good thing it's only optional.

Checks are very simple. DNs range from 2 (hard to fail) to 8 (verging on the impossible). Points can be spent from one's skills to improve the roll (which is always a d6, so you need to spend points at all to get a result of 7 or 8 or higher). You can "piggyback" on someone else's roll in some cases, in a form of aid another, but you need to spend one point as a cost of it from your pool of skill points of the appropriate skill. If you cannot pay the cost, the DN goes up by 2. I think in some ways you can see this as subtly guiding parties towards its members being more specialized in certain things and teamwork, making it so that PCs will piggyback on each other's checks rather than individually always make certain checks. This only works for General abilities, but General abilities are also the only ones that work this way. Investigative abilities (skills, whatever you call them here) are automatic successes, but you have much fewer points in each.

Getting damaged is easy, too, and combat is set up in an easy manner, but also survivable with how long it takes to bleed out. Combat is still harsh, though, as you don't have much to keep you alive, especially since PCs lack protective gear in the typical Trail of Cthulhu environment. I like that you can make checks to stay conscious even when your health is negative.

Firearm rules, including those for full auto machinegun fire, are simple and elegant, but I'm not sure if they're good representations. Great abstractions, maybe, yes, though.

For the Sanity rules, I think I need to read it again. Sanity rules are often a bit hard to understand, due to being messy, complex, or just quite different from all the rest and with specific terminology that makes it just a bit harder.


EDIT: So I read through them again, and I like the divide they made between Stability (which is handled on a per-session basis) and Sanity (which is permanent, at least outside of Pulp games). Sanity purely deals with Mythos stuff, so it can just as well be taken out if you want to use Trail of Cthulhu for games not involving the Old Ones or Deep Ones or such. The Stability rules look like they take a little getting used to at first, but seem pretty easy to use overall, and they can be adapted to characters who are more used to certain situations that would shake up other people. The death of a friend or family member always really shakes up a character, but characters who've had it happen several times before may have gotten used to it, and the system adapts to that.

I like that there are several ways to improve Stability, not just a lot of ways to lose it. Whether it's through following their Drive (the character's primary motivation), being reassured by other characters through psychology-related skills, or purely through great roleplaying and ability use. That last one's important to remember.


Things I can take from this:
Stability
Investigative skills

I really like the Stability rules, even seperate from Sanity. Sanity just feels tacked on, and it's hard to use right, especially since it otherwise might be fun to use in a non-Mythos game. It's just hard to figure out how Sanity could be used right without resorting to aberrations the mind cannot stand to fathom. That characters can recover Stability through great roleplaying with their uses of skills, I thought back to Awesome Points and the stunt dice that Exalted has. If I implement something like those, improving Stability would be one great way to use them.

It's also been enlightening to read through an RPG that doesn't focus on combat in rules and play. While you can easily play any RPG with little or no combat, most do facilitate it and aim primarily for it in their rules and flavour text. This also showed me reasons why or how I could include skills not otherwise seen in other games, such as... well, seriously, Accounting? Where else does that ever appear? I think Trail of Cthulhu handles things much better than Call of Cthulhu, even if they use a lot of the same basic concepts (occupations, certain skills, sanity), and not just that, the book itself was fun to read through. A lot of times the writers just came out and said "look, the rules may seem wonky this way, but it's so that the game runs smoothly and remains fun" and other times go "okay, these are the rules as we wrote them, but feel free to use them in this or that way if it feels better for your group".

Plus, there's the little bits of science in there, like the stuff about black holes in Azathoth's entry. And, of course, all the lore behind the Mythos.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As an aside comment: if you can manage to get someone to play a few of these games with you for at least a session, that will do worlds to inform you. I've found that there's a number of games that become much clearer (especially with how their mechanics interplay) when you actually take them for a spin.

You may also find that certain mechanics work together in surprising ways, or discover that what sounded great on paper wasn't really that good.

(Case in point, Dungeon World seemed a bit "meh" to me, until I actually wound up in a face-to-face 6-player game.)

[Morph Bark]

As an aside comment: if you can manage to get someone to play a few of these games with you for at least a session, that will do worlds to inform you. I've found that there's a number of games that become much clearer (especially with how their mechanics interplay) when you actually take them for a spin.

You may also find that certain mechanics work together in surprising ways, or discover that what sounded great on paper wasn't really that good.

(Case in point, Dungeon World seemed a bit "meh" to me, until I actually wound up in a face-to-face 6-player game.)

Hmmm, I'll probably do that for some of these, though I don't think I can convince most of my group to do so more than once or twice. Is there a reasonable chance I could get a group of people from GitP together to do a game over Skype or other chat programs? (Likely with voice chat, as it's closer to the real experience.)

Also finished up on that Sanity bit of Trail of Cthulhu. I certainly want to try that one out!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about GitP...on the flip side, RPGGeek tends to be a good place to gather players, and I think there's some Google+ communities which cater to Hangout gaming, if you're on that--but you may not be. It's definitely a case of finding people who want to try out weird/different games, as opposed to pitching a specific game.

If you found the non-combat focus of Trail of Cthulhu to be particularly interesting, Golden Sky Stories might be worth a look. Fairly inexpensive at the moment, and the current Bundle of Holding (http://bundleofholding.com/index/current) has it as one of the "beat the average" games. (Native Japanese game that eschews a number of game conventions.)

[Chronologist]

I can totally do a Skype game! Send me a private message whenever. I'm good at learning new systems quickly and giving feedback, just give me a day to get prepared.

[Morph Bark]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about GitP...on the flip side, RPGGeek tends to be a good place to gather players, and I think there's some Google+ communities which cater to Hangout gaming, if you're on that--but you may not be. It's definitely a case of finding people who want to try out weird/different games, as opposed to pitching a specific game.

If you found the non-combat focus of Trail of Cthulhu to be particularly interesting, Golden Sky Stories might be worth a look. Fairly inexpensive at the moment, and the current Bundle of Holding (http://bundleofholding.com/index/current) has it as one of the "beat the average" games. (Native Japanese game that eschews a number of game conventions.)

I'll poke around on RPGGeek when the time comes too, then, as well as other forums, such as Myth-Weavers.

Hmmm, bundle sits at around 15 bucks now... I'll have to check how much money I got right now, and check the reviews on those game systems, because I'm quite nitpicky when it comes to spending money.


I can totally do a Skype game! Send me a private message whenever. I'm good at learning new systems quickly and giving feedback, just give me a day to get prepared.

Awesome! I'll be sure to give you a message then. I won't be starting on it until 2014 (busy holidays and all), but I'll keep ya in mind.

[Morph Bark]

So over the holidays I've been mostly silent in this, as I put it on hold for a bit. I did play some video games with mechanics I could learn from though, such as Unepic, Long Live the Queen and Crusader Kings II. I've also had family over from the US and I've talked a lot with one of my cousins about my ideas and plans, as he also used to play tabletop quite a bit and has recently got a degree as a video game environmental artist. He suggested I look into Shadowrun too, and talked a bit about his experiences with it, which gives me the impression that Shadowrun has a very fun magic system, which I'm sure will be great to read through and learn from.

[toapat]

He suggested I look into Shadowrun too, and talked a bit about his experiences with it, which gives me the impression that Shadowrun has a very fun magic system, which I'm sure will be great to read through and learn from.

i thought Shadowrun's magic system came down to a Pallet of dice as opposed to Third's Brick o Dice

[sirpercival]

Morph, I'm going to add Dawn of Worlds and Microscope to your list. They aren't traditional rpgs by any means, but I actually ran a worldbuilding session using a DoW/Microscope hybrid and it was incredibly fun.

[Morph Bark]

I've played Dawn of Worlds over the Christmas holidays in fact. Great fun, even with a lot of people! We've ended up with three worlds, each crazier than the last. In fact, it was one of the games I looked to when creating EMPIRE! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325034) to figure out the rules and improve them.

Haven't heard of Microscope before, but I'll take a look at it. Thanks for mentioning it.

[unbeliever536]

So I have a few spreadsheets/random notebooks with stuff for a hypothetical trpg that I might spend the summer on. It would be level based and designed to feel like d&d 3.5, but without quite so many subsystems. I'm planning to use a d20 with degrees of success, and I've come up with two mechanics I really like:

1) Proficiency Schools as skills-
Basically, you're proficient with a bunch of stuff (a particular school of magic, a group of related skills, a class of weapons...), and your bonus when doing/using something in that school increases over your normal, level-based bonus. Leveling up allows you to improve your proficiency in some of the schools, and at certain key levels (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20) grants you new abilities. Each class would have a bundle of proficiencies (plus a few wildcards chosen when you first take a level in the class) and would be able to improve some smaller number of those proficiencies at each level. Classes probably also have class features so that you get some new ability at every level.

2) Stances (I'm mentally refining this idea after reading Grinner's comments above)-
During combat, some manuvers require you to change stance (a swift action). Stances are always offensive or defensive (default is neutral, strictly worse than offensive or defensive), and you can activate as many things as you like as long as you are going into the appropriate stance for each. For example, Parrying requires that you go into a defensive stance, and improves your AC-equivalent (I'm moving towards having armor only grant DR), while Tripping requires that you go into an offensive stance. Staggering an opponent (itself a manuver) knocks them out of whatever stance they were in, essentially making it more difficult for them to defend themselves.

I might expand the stances to cover sacrificing defense for offense and vice-versa to a greater degree, though things need to be fleshed out a bit more before I do that.

[Ichigoarc]

@sirpercival
could you give a brief explanation of how that microscope/DoW hybrid worked?

[Arjhan]

If you're still working on this, I have a system based off of D&D 3.5 that is designed a simulationist ideal mostly ideas from Unearthed Arcana mooshed together. Warning, it has never been playtested, it is most likely unplayable, but I think it's interesting anyway. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GAp-ftERb9YOffvZruUpZVRRtri8x7R6bkAiuXEll1o
-Arjhan