"Balance" in a Point-Based System

[Tormsskull]

Hi all,

I'm not a big fan of exact balance in an RPG, as I believe it is pretty much impossible to do. Depending on the player of the character, how they utilizie their specific benefits, etc, there are just too many factors to take into consideration.

So when I am looking at my own custom RPG that I am making, which is classless, I begin to wonder how in the world a GM even attempts balance? Anyone who has familiarity with other point-based systems (like GURPS), I'd like to hear from you.

Basically, if two characters have 25 points to spend on character abilities, and one spends their points on combat related abilities, and one spends them on social/skill/non-combat related abilities, I don't see how it is remotely possible to balance the two of them (aside from trying to include an equal number of encounters that can be resolved by either way).

[Indon]

I do it by designing my encounters such that anyone can have a chance to shine.

Short of customizing encounters, and/or warning your players of the kinds of circumstances they will commonly face, I really don't think there's a way.

[Lapak]

I don't have much experience in game design, but it seems to me that balance is probably not best measured as 'combat vs. social' or 'this skill vs. that skill,' unless you have a fairly specific campaign restriction in mind. (It makes sense to try to balance superpowers in a four-color comic book hero game, say, because it inherently involves going around and busting bad guy heads.)

If I was doing it, I'd try to make it more it cost an equal amount to advance in something based on how far from an untrained normal person you're moving by purchasing it. 'Good enough to win a bar fight' should cost about as much as 'good enough to talk your way out of one' and 'good enough to defeat 100 opponents singlehanded' should cost about as much as 'good enough to talk an angry mob down.' Not strictly because you can resolve the same situation either way, but because each is a comparable level better than an untrained, ordinary person.

Fair warning: the actual mechanics can make balance very, very tricky, though. Completely point-based mechanisms are highly vulnerable to powergame-style min-maxing. In GURPS, for example, there may be two different ways to reach the same level in a given set of skills - by raising them directly or by raising a stat that increases them, say. But one way may cost fewer points than the other, despite giving identical results.

[Khantalas]

Well, really, it is not. Let's take two powers from M&M, Comprehend and Blast, for comparison. In combat, Blast wins. In fact, allowing Distracting as a flaw for Comprehend is not advised because its use in combat is very limited. However, in turn, in social situations, Comprehend can be extremely useful, while Blast will be just sitting there.

However, Blast does not lose all usefulness at Power Level 10, 12 or 20. While it may remain limited, its cost is much less than, say, Perception range Grafting, giving it a definite edge when it comes to availability. Whereas, for example, in D&D, some things may require very remote possibilities to be useful compared to other things with the same cost. Like when people compare Power Attack to Dodge (seriously, does anyone even take Dodge?) or Toughness to, well, most other feats.

I think. Keep in mind that I've never been a good balancer and anything I say should be considered nothing more than what it is: my personal opinion (biased in favor of M&M).

[Piccamo]

If you limit how many points a player may put into a character it forces them to diversify. For instance, at character creation capping skills at 3 points each (or some similar number, I don't know how your system works) can make the social character quickly max out his social skills. Then he may choose to put points into combat. Warn the players that there will be combat and having some combat skills is necessary.

Another approach is to completely separate skill types entirely. Let's say you're using this approach:
- There are 5 skill groups: Combat, Social, Athletic, Wilderness, and Magic
- Each character may have 3 favored skill groups
- Each character has 10 points to put into each favored skill group and 5 for each non-favored at character creation.
- All post-creation points are at double-cost for non-favored groups.

With this sort of approach you allow people to be good at multiple things without necessarily gimping them in or out of combat. If you are using ability score type things, further combat prowess above another player can be shown this way. I have always looked at ability scores as being more akin to innate talent. With the abilities it means both the martial character and the social character can focus on their areas without seeming too similar to one another.

If this seemed a bit random or disorganized I apologize. I'll clarify later if necessary.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Two points, then some advice.

First off, shouldn't this be in Homebrew?

Secondly: why are you designing a classless, points-based system in the first place? What is it about that style of system that appeals to you? Is it going to be fantasy, or something else?

Now on to the actual advice.

There's two different ways to define "balance."

Firstly, you can think of it as coming from the game. This definition of "balance" broadly means "it should be impossible, or close to impossible, to create two characters in this system, one of whom is just plain better than the other."

This is the type of "balance" that D&D aims for but fails to deliver.

The alternative definition of "balance" is balance deriving from the GM. In this case "balance" should mean something like: "The responsibility of the GM, supported by the system as much as possible, to ensure that all characters are capable of contributing equally to the game."

Most points-based games go for the latter version of "balance" (and this is why people make the mistake of thinking D&D is "less balanced than other games").

If one player invests all his points in combat skills, and the other invests all his points in social skills, that should be taken by the DM as a sign that player A wants to have his character get into fights, and player B wants his character get into social situations.

Basically a game like this won't work on a D&D style "encounter" model, where your characters are thrust into combat four times a day (or even four times a month). It has to be more open ended, with more opportunities for players to set their own goals. Otherwise the guy who invests in combat skills *will* wind up better off than the guy who invests in social skills.

Also: be careful about having skills which everybody needs all the time ("Spot" style skills are big contenders here). There's nothing worse than being forced to invest a large portion of your character's resources in an essentially passive skill that's too useful not to take.

[Charity]

I think that true balance is a false Grail, I pretty much agree that it cannot be acheived in a comprehensive rule system, regardless of format.
However it can be achieved if the players and the DM are complicit in arranging it.
I honestly think there is a competitiveness in some most parties that see's players trying to out do each other. That is always going to lead to strife, and discontent.
I say do not look to the system for balance, the players of the game using self regulation (with gentle DM prodding) is the key to a balanced game.

[Tormsskull]

Thanks for everyone's input so far.



I don't have much experience in game design, but it seems to me that balance is probably not best measured as 'combat vs. social' or 'this skill vs. that skill,' unless you have a fairly specific campaign restriction in mind. (It makes sense to try to balance superpowers in a four-color comic book hero game, say, because it inherently involves going around and busting bad guy heads.)


I'm just using social skills as an example of a non-combat skill.



If I was doing it, I'd try to make it more it cost an equal amount to advance in something based on how far from an untrained normal person you're moving by purchasing it. 'Good enough to win a bar fight' should cost about as much as 'good enough to talk your way out of one' and 'good enough to defeat 100 opponents singlehanded' should cost about as much as 'good enough to talk an angry mob down.' Not strictly because you can resolve the same situation either way, but because each is a comparable level better than an untrained, ordinary person.


Right. So you're saying balance the skills against each other rather than the combinations of skills that each player may or may not take. That's basically what I did. Some of the skills are not as good as another skill (arguably) and those skills I made cost less points.



Fair warning: the actual mechanics can make balance very, very tricky, though. Completely point-based mechanisms are highly vulnerable to powergame-style min-maxing. In GURPS, for example, there may be two different ways to reach the same level in a given set of skills - by raising them directly or by raising a stat that increases them, say. But one way may cost fewer points than the other, despite giving identical results.


Yeah, I am finding that out myself. In my system stats are static, they don't change by gaining levels or training stats. The best ways I can think of balancing the skills is by attributing different point costs and by making some of the skills (at higher levels) also cost money in order to find a highly qualified trainer.



Whereas, for example, in D&D, some things may require very remote possibilities to be useful compared to other things with the same cost. Like when people compare Power Attack to Dodge (seriously, does anyone even take Dodge?) or Toughness to, well, most other feats.


Yeah, that's one of the main problems with D&D 3.5 IMO, each "Feat" costs the same amount of "points" (namely 1 feat costs 1 feat regardless of which feat you are taking, which makes one presume that all feats are generally equal in power or usefulness).


If you limit how many points a player may put into a character it forces them to diversify. For instance, at character creation capping skills at 3 points each (or some similar number, I don't know how your system works) can make the social character quickly max out his social skills. Then he may choose to put points into combat. Warn the players that there will be combat and having some combat skills is necessary.


Yeah, I am doing just that. I'm still using levels, and a character cannot put more points into a skill/ability than their level. So at level 1 a character might be able to buy 6 or 7 different skills/abilities all at level 1.



Another approach is to completely separate skill types entirely. Let's say you're using this approach:
- There are 5 skill groups: Combat, Social, Athletic, Wilderness, and Magic
- Each character may have 3 favored skill groups
- Each character has 10 points to put into each favored skill group and 5 for each non-favored at character creation.
- All post-creation points are at double-cost for non-favored groups.


I had initially set the system up similiar to this, where there were classes. There was only 4 different classes, and the skills cost different point values based on what class you were. This method allowed a character to customize still because they could take skills outside of their class, but the cost was increased to show the difficulty.

That got me to thinking though, as my original point of this system was to allow players a lot of customization. I didn't want to limit them to classes or types of characters. I want them to be able to choose skills/abilities that they think make sense and then have them describe why they make sense in the form of a backstory/history/whatnot.



Two points, then some advice.

First off, shouldn't this be in Homebrew?


I wasn't sure. I'm mainly looking for how people who play non-d20 RPGs that utilize point-based systems are able to balance their games.



Secondly: why are you designing a classless, points-based system in the first place? What is it about that style of system that appeals to you? Is it going to be fantasy, or something else?


I'm designing a classless, point-based system in order to allow the players to customize their characters to their desires. If one character wants to make a warrior type character who also happens to know a bit of magic, I want that to be possible. If a player wants to be a stealth-based character who also is very good with his sword, I want that to be possible.

Basically I want the players to be able to tailor their characters without any pre-packages standing in their way.



The alternative definition of "balance" is balance deriving from the GM. In this case "balance" should mean something like: "The responsibility of the GM, supported by the system as much as possible, to ensure that all characters are capable of contributing equally to the game."


This is what I am aiming for.



If one player invests all his points in combat skills, and the other invests all his points in social skills, that should be taken by the DM as a sign that player A wants to have his character get into fights, and player B wants his character get into social situations.


Ok, so basically I need to tailor the encounters to the characters.

I'm running a playtesting session of the system here in about a month. I'm trying to make a generic module that I can run a group through that gives each of the different skills a chance to shine. I think if I just make sure none of the skills are required in order to advance through the module, it will be ok if this particular session isn't fit specifically for the party.

[Jayabalard]

Point based systems work best if you are the sort of people who want to make rounded characters... not so much if you looking for a kick in the door, kill stuff and take their loot game. The game you run has to match: Of course your not going to be able to balance those characters if all of the challenges are combat. The non-combat characters are going to feel useless, because they are... just like if you have people who forsake everything to be a better killing machine, they're useless in anything except combat.

Going with the gurps example, some things to keep in mind.
-disadvantages should actually be disadvantages; they limit the character. if it's not, then the character really shouldn't be getting more than a point (quirk) for it.
-raising a skill directly vs raising the attribute that controls it; while these give identical results at character creation for that particular skill, the result later on down the line is going to be quite different. This isn't really a min-max situation unless you're running a one shot adventure, since each way has it's advantages and disadvantages later on.


First off, shouldn't this be in Homebrew?Not really, he's asking for comments from people experienced in point based systems in general.


Secondly: why are you designing a classless, points-based system in the first place? What is it about that style of system that appeals to you? Is it going to be fantasy, or something else?I'm not sure about him, but I generally prefer it because that style character is inherently more realistic than class based systems; the player makes it clear from the beginning of the character creation process exactly what that character has done up to that point, paying for things that are an advantage.

If you really want to be a member of some, ultra secret organization that has access to special knowledge, resources and abilities, there are probably ways for you to pay for those things... you just have to work out the price with the GM.

[Dausuul]

Hi all,

I'm not a big fan of exact balance in an RPG, as I believe it is pretty much impossible to do. Depending on the player of the character, how they utilizie their specific benefits, etc, there are just too many factors to take into consideration.

So when I am looking at my own custom RPG that I am making, which is classless, I begin to wonder how in the world a GM even attempts balance? Anyone who has familiarity with other point-based systems (like GURPS), I'd like to hear from you.

Basically, if two characters have 25 points to spend on character abilities, and one spends their points on combat related abilities, and one spends them on social/skill/non-combat related abilities, I don't see how it is remotely possible to balance the two of them (aside from trying to include an equal number of encounters that can be resolved by either way).

*shrug* It's a judgement call. You have to estimate how important combat is in your game, then adjust the costs accordingly.

At one end of the spectrum, you have games like D&D, which is essentially a tactical wargame with a bit of role-playing tacked on the end. In D&D, combat is everything and combat abilities vastly outweigh non-combat skills in importance.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have games like White Wolf's, which are meant to focus on role-playing and non-combat activities, with combat as the occasional brutal interlude. In such a system, combat is just one skill among many.

Both of these systems could be balanced*, but it depends on what you're building for. From D&D's perspective, White Wolf's combat stats are way too cheap, because D&D is combat-heavy. From White Wolf's perspective, D&D's combat stats are way too expensive, because White Wolf is combat-light (in theory, at least). You have to decide what your expectations are before you can say whether your system is balanced or not.

*I'm not saying they are balanced, mind you. Neither D&D nor White Wolf does an especially good job of achieving balance even within their expectations.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm designing a classless, point-based system in order to allow the players to customize their characters to their desires. If one character wants to make a warrior type character who also happens to know a bit of magic, I want that to be possible. If a player wants to be a stealth-based character who also is very good with his sword, I want that to be possible.

Okay, that's reasonable.

Is the kind of customization you're going for ... hmm, trying to think of a way of explaining it ... are you looking for a kind of "open world" system, where you could create a warrior, or a diplomat, or a cook or a pig farmer as a starting character, or are you looking for more "customization within parameters".

That is to say, are you looking to have a system where people can play literally *anything*, even things which would completely suck in an adventure, or are you just trying to make the "standard" adventurer a little more customizable.

If you're going with the latter, I'd suggest trying to make *some* combat/survival/dungeoneering abilities free, or level-based (this game is level-based, yes?).


Basically I want the players to be able to tailor their characters without any pre-packages standing in their way.

That's fair. The thing you need to watch out for is that "freedom" frequently means "freedom to suck." If you're going to be running an "adventure" based game, you'll need to find some way to give everybody a minimum level of competence (like D&D BAB and Hit Points).


Ok, so basically I need to tailor the encounters to the characters.

Depending on how the system works, you might need to go even further than that and drop the idea of "encounters" altogether. If you get attacked by a band of Orcs, and half the party are noncombatants you're in big trouble.


I'm running a playtesting session of the system here in about a month. I'm trying to make a generic module that I can run a group through that gives each of the different skills a chance to shine. I think if I just make sure none of the skills are required in order to advance through the module, it will be ok if this particular session isn't fit specifically for the party.

Again, this depends on the kind of game you want to be running. If you're essentially looking at a game that's like D&D but more flexible, you should be fine with that. If you're looking at something more open you might hit stumbling blocks as the players say things like "hang on, I'm the Steward of the Duke of Allenvay, what am I doing in this dungeon?"

[Jayabalard]

I have to ask though: why create a new system? Is there something missing from or wrong with one of the ones that already exists?

Take GURPS for example: While it isn't perfect, it's a pretty flexible system, virtually a meta-system; it allows you to customize the game however you want. It has supplements out the wazoo, both official and fan made

[Dan_Hemmens]

*shrug* It's a judgement call. You have to estimate how important combat is in your game, then adjust the costs accordingly.

I think this is the right sentiment, but I think you're looking at it backwards.

If combat is very important in your game, you need to make combat abilities cheap. Otherwise people won't have them, and they'll be screwed.


At one end of the spectrum, you have games like D&D, which is essentially a tactical wargame with a bit of role-playing tacked on the end. In D&D, combat is everything and combat abilities vastly outweigh non-combat skills in importance.

Although interestingly, combat abilities don't actually cost you anything in D&D. Everybody gets them for free.


At the other end of the spectrum, you have games like White Wolf's, which are meant to focus on role-playing and non-combat activities, with combat as the occasional brutal interlude. In such a system, combat is just one skill among many.

White Wolf games are far more combat-focused than they pretend to be.

Sure, there's only one "Melee" skill, but there's also a "Brawling" skill and a "Firearms" skill. Compare that to the single skill covering all Academic disciplines or Craft skills.

And there's a whole lot of combat-usable supernatural abilities as well.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I have to ask though: why create a new system? Is there something missing from or wrong with one of the ones that already exists?

Take GURPS for example: While it isn't perfect, it's a pretty flexible system, virtually a meta-system; it allows you to customize the game however you want. It has supplements out the wazoo, both official and fan made

Speaking personally, I design new systems because the amount of effort involved is only marginally greater than the effort involved in houseruling an existing system to fit my needs, plus it will wind up doing exactly what I want it to do, instead of *almost* what I want it to do.

Plus, writing a new system is free, whereas buying one costs money, and designing a system means that you understand it inside out, instead of turning around six sessions in and saying "oh crap, we've been playing it wrong since February."

[Jayabalard]

That's fair. The thing you need to watch out for is that "freedom" frequently means "freedom to suck." If you're going to be running an "adventure" based game, you'll need to find some way to give everybody a minimum level of competence (like D&D BAB and Hit Points).You say that like it's a bad thing; characters in this sort of system shouldn't be forced to have a minimum level of competence in anything that they don't want to be competent in.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You say that like it's a bad thing; characters in this sort of system shouldn't be forced to have a minimum level of competence in anything that they don't want to be competent in.

That's more or less what I'm trying to establish: I'm still not sure what sort of system this is.

If it's an "open world" system ("here's a fictional setting, play somebody who lives in it") then I absolutely agree. On the other hand, if it's a D&D-like game, in which your character is assumed to be some sort of Adventurer, then you shouldn't be forced to pay for the ability to survive common encounters.

Since the system seems to be levels-based, that strongly implies that it's going to have at least an element of "leveling up" in it, which further implies that high level characters are expected to be "more powerful" than low-level characters.

What you seriously want to *avoid* is a situation where the only difference between a blacksmith who has gone on an epic journey to save the world and a blacksmith who has stayed at home practicing his craft is that the former character comes back a more competent blacksmith.

[Tormsskull]

Is the kind of customization you're going for ... hmm, trying to think of a way of explaining it ... are you looking for a kind of "open world" system, where you could create a warrior, or a diplomat, or a cook or a pig farmer as a starting character, or are you looking for more "customization within parameters".


Customization within parameters. It is assumed that by choosing to play, the players are taking on the roles of adventuring heroes. Players can have any number of non-adventuring skills (farmer, tailor, animal breeder) whatever within reason. I don't think I am going to set any hard and fast rules on this, but if someone gets out of line (I'm a weaponsmith, armorer, boat making, bow and arrow designing castle-builder) then I'll try to appeal to their common sense.



If you're going with the latter, I'd suggest trying to make *some* combat/survival/dungeoneering abilities free, or level-based (this game is level-based, yes?).


Yeah, it is level-based. Characters start with 25 points to spend. They then get additional points from successfully defeating encounters, solving problems, etc. Each 25 points gained advances the character to the next level.



That's fair. The thing you need to watch out for is that "freedom" frequently means "freedom to suck." If you're going to be running an "adventure" based game, you'll need to find some way to give everybody a minimum level of competence (like D&D BAB and Hit Points).


Yeah, but I'm wondering if I just explain to them upfront that combat will be a center focus of the system, that they will either 1) take some combat skills, or 2) not be upset when they aren't the greatest in combat if they don't take combat skills.



Depending on how the system works, you might need to go even further than that and drop the idea of "encounters" altogether. If you get attacked by a band of Orcs, and half the party are noncombatants you're in big trouble.


Yeah, I'll just explain to them up front so this kind of a situation doesn't come into being.



Again, this depends on the kind of game you want to be running. If you're essentially looking at a game that's like D&D but more flexible, you should be fine with that. If you're looking at something more open you might hit stumbling blocks as the players say things like "hang on, I'm the Steward of the Duke of Allenvay, what am I doing in this dungeon?"

heh. Actually, the module is based on escaping from a multi-tiered prison that is built on the water (Think Alcatraz). So the Steward could have been thrown in there :P



I have to ask though: why create a new system? Is there something missing from or wrong with one of the ones that already exists?


Mostly it is because throughout my gaming I have noticed some things about other systems that don't quite capture exactly what I am looking for. So I decided to design my own in order to be able to set everything from the ground up.

[PirateMonk]

Communication is the key to balance in any system. If the GM is running, for example, a combat-heavy fantasy dungeon crawl/slugfest, then (s)he should tell the players to get lots of combat skills and spells. If the GM is running a purely investigative Conspiracy game, however, then the players should be told to go for social abilities. If it's, say, a horror game where you track down the monsters and kill them, then the GM should tell the players what character "types" will be needed, and instruct the players to have some points in combat skills and some in investigative abilities, so they can cope no matter what their specialty.

So basically, a purely social character and a combat monster should generally never be in the same game. If you didn't get a chance to talk with the players before they made their characters and you end up with them anyway, then you just give each a chance to shine and encourage the players to diversify.

[Jayabalard]

Speaking personally, I design new systems because the amount of effort involved is only marginally greater than the effort involved in houseruling an existing system to fit my needs, plus it will wind up doing exactly what I want it to do, instead of *almost* what I want it to do.

Plus, writing a new system is free, whereas buying one costs money, and designing a system means that you understand it inside out, instead of turning around six sessions in and saying "oh crap, we've been playing it wrong since February."I have to wonder: are you actually familiar with GURPS?

The world books are detailed to use in other systems that have completely unrelated rules; I wouldn't personally call that level of research "marginally greater"

If you've been "playing it wrong" and enjoying it, why would you worry about changing it?

[Dausuul]

I think this is the right sentiment, but I think you're looking at it backwards.

If combat is very important in your game, you need to make combat abilities cheap. Otherwise people won't have them, and they'll be screwed.

But then why would anyone ever buy the (comparatively) expensive non-combat skills? If the game is built around combat, and that's made clear from the get-go, people will buy combat abilities even though they're expensive, because otherwise they'll die.

Of course, you may find it necessary to mandate a certain minimum level of combat prowess, just so people don't screw up and make unplayable characters. But beyond that minimum, combat skills should be expensive and non-combat skills should be cheap, or no one will ever invest in anything but combat skills.


Although interestingly, combat abilities don't actually cost you anything in D&D. Everybody gets them for free.

Not at all. You still pay for your combat abilities, but the costs are controlled in a more rigid manner, since D&D uses a class system. Instead of letting you fine-tune the trade-offs between abilities, D&D presents you with several package deals.

Bards and rogues are examples of this. Skill-monkeys trade combat prowess for non-combat capability. They give up a comparatively small amount of combat prowess and get huge amounts of non-combat capability in return, thereby demonstrating that in D&D, combat stuff is expensive and non-combat stuff is cheap.


White Wolf games are far more combat-focused than they pretend to be.

Sure, there's only one "Melee" skill, but there's also a "Brawling" skill and a "Firearms" skill. Compare that to the single skill covering all Academic disciplines or Craft skills.

And there's a whole lot of combat-usable supernatural abilities as well.

Yeah, White Wolf isn't really a very good example, but it was what I could think of off the top of my head. Still, White Wolf is a lot less combat-oriented than D&D.


Yeah, I am doing just that. I'm still using levels, and a character cannot put more points into a skill/ability than their level. So at level 1 a character might be able to buy 6 or 7 different skills/abilities all at level 1.

Interesting, I'm doing pretty much the same thing with the system I'm building. Level-based but classless, with the level acting as a cap on all of your talents.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Customization within parameters. It is assumed that by choosing to play, the players are taking on the roles of adventuring heroes. Players can have any number of non-adventuring skills (farmer, tailor, animal breeder) whatever within reason. I don't think I am going to set any hard and fast rules on this, but if someone gets out of line (I'm a weaponsmith, armorer, boat making, bow and arrow designing castle-builder) then I'll try to appeal to their common sense.

Okay. In that case I would strongly recommend giving some kind of adventuring-style skills for free, or restricting the way in which points can be spent such that players have to invest some points in some useful skills. Of course the easiest way to do this is to make sure that the system contains no use*less* skills.


Yeah, it is level-based. Characters start with 25 points to spend. They then get additional points from successfully defeating encounters, solving problems, etc. Each 25 points gained advances the character to the next level.

So a level two character is fully twice as competent as a level one?

What does leveling up actually get you?


Yeah, but I'm wondering if I just explain to them upfront that combat will be a center focus of the system, that they will either 1) take some combat skills, or 2) not be upset when they aren't the greatest in combat if they don't take combat skills.

My personal feel is that, in game design, it is good manners to treat any possible build as a viable build, if you see what I mean.

Playing a character who can't fight at all isn't viable in D&D, so the system doesn't allow it. I'd suggest doing the same in your system.


Yeah, I'll just explain to them up front so this kind of a situation doesn't come into being.

Fair enough.


heh. Actually, the module is based on escaping from a multi-tiered prison that is built on the water (Think Alcatraz). So the Steward could have been thrown in there :P

But he could, legitimately, say "having been thrown into this prison, I have no in-character reason to presume that I am anything but doomed. My character is, after all, just a steward."

[Jayabalard]

Mostly it is because throughout my gaming I have noticed some things about other systems that don't quite capture exactly what I am looking for. So I decided to design my own in order to be able to set everything from the ground up.Mind sharing specifics? Not what you're doing in the design (unless you feel like sharing), just some of the concepts that you're trying to capture.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But then why would anyone ever buy the (comparatively) expensive non-combat skills? If the game is built around combat, and that's made clear from the get-go, people will buy combat abilities even though they're expensive, because otherwise they'll die.


But at that point you're essentially forcing people to waste a bunch of their points on an overpriced skill they have no choice but to take.

Actually, what you probably want here is a diminishing-returns system, making it easier to be quite good at lots of things than really good at one thing.

[Dausuul]

But at that point you're essentially forcing people to waste a bunch of their points on an overpriced skill they have no choice but to take.

That's why I suggested mandating a minimum level of skill. Or else build the system so that you get level-based bonuses in combat even if your combat skills are zero.


Actually, what you probably want here is a diminishing-returns system, making it easier to be quite good at lots of things than really good at one thing.

That's almost always a good idea, in any system. Otherwise characters have a tendency to overspecialize.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I have to wonder: are you actually familiar with GURPS?

Not intimately. I really dislike generic systems.


The world books are detailed to use in other systems that have completely unrelated rules; I wouldn't personally call that level of research "marginally greater"

I don't follow you.


If you've been "playing it wrong" and enjoying it, why would you worry about changing it?

On the flip side, if you can enjoy playing the game without following the rules, why bother with the rules in the first place?

[Jayabalard]

But he could, legitimately, say "having been thrown into this prison, I have no in-character reason to presume that I am anything but doomed. My character is, after all, just a steward."And Andy Dufresne was just an accountant... it doesn't mean that he's fatalistic and going to just give up and die.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And Andy Dufresne was just an accountant... it doesn't mean that he's fatalistic and going to just give up and die.

Crucially, though, Andy Dufresne was the main character in The Shawshank Redemption, not in The Great Escape. He got out of prison by spending about ten years tunneling through the wall extremely slowly.

Because he didn't have any useful skills.

If you put him in your average dungeon bash, he'd be dead inside five minutes.

[Jayabalard]

Not intimately. I really dislike generic systems.

I don't follow you.

On the flip side, if you can enjoy playing the game without following the rules, why bother with the rules in the first place?That explains alot... your comments made it seem pretty likely but I didn't want to assume it.

I'm kind of surprised that you dislike generic systems; they're aimed at empowering people to play exactly the sort of game, world, and characters that they want without artificial game limitations.

The entire purpose of GURPS is to be flexible and let you do exactly what you want. The rules are all scalable, depending on exactly how much realism you want. The system is built with the assumption that you are going to ignore some of them, change some of them without altering the core of the system, which is very very simple; if you're "playing it wrong" then you're probably ignoring one of the more realistic, optional, rules, in which case the response should be "meh, we like it how we're doing it" or "hey, we can be a little more realistic if we do it this way" rather than "crap". Other than that, it's hard to roll 3d6 and compare it to a number wrong.


Crucially, though, Andy Dufresne was the main character in The Shawshank Redemption, not in The Great Escape. He got out of prison by spending about ten years tunneling through the wall extremely slowly.

Because he didn't have any useful skills.

If you put him in your average dungeon bash, he'd be dead inside five minutes.)Perhaps he'd have a problem in your average dungeon bash; I don't really have "average dungeon bashes" so I don't think he'd have a problem. But the point is, he didn't just give up and say "I'm only an accountant" ... nor would a steward necessarily say "I'm only a steward" and presume that the is doomed.

[PinkysBrain]

Of course the easiest way to do this is to make sure that the system contains no use*less* skills.
I could take dozens of skills out of the GURPS skill list which are defacto impossible to make useful to an adventurer. Even if by some contrived accident say the bicycling skill could be made useful in a spacefaring adventure it's only ever going to be in a such a small numbers of cases that the skill is still useless.

If you want to have as exhaustive a skill list as for instance GURPS you either give out free points for the semi-useless skills or you have to live with the fact that players who chose to put points in them become less adapt at solving the problems they face in "every day" life (which regardless of the system is never actually every day life).

PS. or conversely, you could start with characters only allowed to put skills in a subset of "useless" every day life skills and turn them into adventurers over the course of the adventure.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That explains alot... your comments made it seem pretty likely but I didn't want to assume it.

I'm kind of surprised that you dislike generic systems; they're aimed at empowering people to play exactly the sort of game, world, and characters that they want without artificial game limitations.

That's exactly my problem with them. They're aimed at that, but they inevitably have a whole bunch of assumptions built into the core rules.


The entire purpose of GURPS is to be flexible and let you do exactly what you want. The rules are all scalable, depending on exactly how much realism you want.

That's the thing, though. I don't view "high realism" and "low realism" as defining the full spectrum of the roleplaying experience.


The system is built with the assumption that you are going to ignore some of them, change some of them without altering the core of the system, which is very very simple; if you're "playing it wrong" then you're probably ignoring one of the more realistic, optional, rules, in which case the response should be "meh, we like it how we're doing it" or "hey, we can be a little more realistic if we do it this way" rather than "crap". Other than that, it's hard to roll 3d6 and compare it to a number wrong.

That's exactly the sort of system I don't like. It makes so many assumptions about how RPGs "work" that it fails to recognize that they can work in many, many different ways.

GURPs can't reproduce the whimsical nihilism of The Dying Earth RPG, or the freewheeling player-narrated action of Wushu. It doesn't have the player-defined skills and stonking sanity mechanics of Unknown Armies or the endlessly-flexible rules-lightness of Over the Edge.

GURPs can do high realism or low realism. It can't do "actually, realism is a complete non-issue for me."

[Jayabalard]

I could take dozens of skills out of the GURPS skill list which are defacto impossible to make useful to an adventurer. Even if by some contrived accident say the bicycling skill could be made useful in a spacefaring adventure it's only ever going to be in a such a small numbers of cases that the skill is still useless.personally, I think that the "useless" skills in GURPS are great... because real people do have time spent on "useless skills"

[Tormsskull]

So a level two character is fully twice as competent as a level one?

What does leveling up actually get you?


Leveling up increases the skill cap.

Here is an example:

Sample Characters:

The Warrior – The classic front-line combatant laden with heavy armor, a huge weapon, and the desire to dish out as much damage as possible.
Race: Eqar
Attributes: Agility 40, Endurance 80, Strength 100, Intellect 45, Personality 65, Willpower 30, Spirit 50.
Skills: Off. Training(1), Def. Training(1), Polearms(1), Weapon Training (Polearms)(1), Heavy Armor(1), Armor Training (Heavy Armor)(1), Second Attack(1), Spears(1).


Each of the sample character's skills are maxed out at level 1. As soon as the character gains any skill points at all, he can purchase level 2 skills. From there on out it is 25 points/level. I did this specifically so that players wouldn't have to wait until they accumulated 25 points in order to spend them.

It probably sounds confusing in text, but I could explain it orally much easier. Basically a character at creation is restricted to level 1 in any skill. As soon as they gain skill points they can level any of their skills that they can afford up to level 2. In order to take skills up to level 3 they have to have 50 total points (including the ones they have already spent).

So:
Level 1 requires 0 points. (25 total)
Level 2 requires 1 point. (26 total)
Level 3 requires 25 points. (50 total)
Level 4 requires 50 points. (75 total)
Level 5 requires 75 points. (100 total)
etc...



My personal feel is that, in game design, it is good manners to treat any possible build as a viable build, if you see what I mean.

Playing a character who can't fight at all isn't viable in D&D, so the system doesn't allow it. I'd suggest doing the same in your system.


I know what you mean, but I am hesitant to do that because it restricts the player's choices. I have skills called Offense Training and Defensive Training in my system, and while most people who have a lot to do with combat will probably keep them maxed at all times, some people might not. Someone planning on playing a ranged combatant might not want to spend points on Defensive Training as they feel they won't get attacked often enough to justify the cost, they rather spend their points on something else.



But he could, legitimately, say "having been thrown into this prison, I have no in-character reason to presume that I am anything but doomed. My character is, after all, just a steward."

This is true, but I have already informed the play testers that what I am doing is running a play test session. This isn't part of a campaign at this point, it is just a one-shot in order to test out some of the mechanics, see what kind of characters the players build, give me a feel on what the players think of it, etc. If someone showed up to a play test session with a character that refused to go along with the adventure I'd bop them in the head.



Mind sharing specifics? Not what you're doing in the design (unless you feel like sharing), just some of the concepts that you're trying to capture.


Well, I think the D&D magic system, for example, is way off what I want. I think spell casters who read books and thus have magic in their heads, but only as long as they have the correct words memorized, does not fit with what I envision a spellcaster to be. That is, someone for which magic is an innate ability. Rather than memorizing particular words, these spellcasters simply do it.

I also like the idea of rogues that are very skilled with their weapons, or battle mages decked out in full armor, or Warriors that are also trained in the ability to assassinate people. Anything that a player really wants to try out they can.

I think healing is something that a lot of people find boring, and as such I used more of a vitality/wounds type system that I originally saw in SWd20 (but I modified it to my own liking). Healing is very restricted during combat, but after combat healing can be accomplished with some abilities.

Really I want this system to have less rules so that it dosen't get all bogged down in numbers. I'd rather have the basics fleshed out and then make decisions on the fly for whatever creative thing the players come up with.

[Jayabalard]

That's exactly my problem with them. They're aimed at that, but they inevitably have a whole bunch of assumptions built into the core rules.

That's the thing, though. I don't view "high realism" and "low realism" as defining the full spectrum of the roleplaying experience.

That's exactly the sort of system I don't like. It makes so many assumptions about how RPGs "work" that it fails to recognize that they can work in many, many different ways.Assumptions like what? The only ones I can think of are

You need a way to model characters and their abilities
You need a way to determine success/failure/how effective something is (whether it's player or DM fiat, or closely controlled by rules)


Which are both pretty much required for any rpg (though the methodology varies widely)


It doesn't have the player-defined skills and stonking sanity mechanics of Unknown Armies The basic book allows for player/GM created skills, and as I recall, GURPS Chthullu and GURPS Pulp have a couple sets of rules for sanity, and suggestions on how to create your own.


<snip a bunch of other systems> GURPs can do high realism or low realism. It can't do "actually, realism is a complete non-issue for me."why not? Use the basic rules, or one of the many variants, or make your own. You can get exactly what you want.

About the only thing that the system doesn't handle well is weird rules for the sake of weird rules.

[Jayabalard]

Well, I think the D&D magic system, for example, is way off what I want. I think spell casters who read books and thus have magic in their heads, but only as long as they have the correct words memorized, does not fit with what I envision a spellcaster to be. That is, someone for which magic is an innate ability. Rather than memorizing particular words, these spellcasters simply do it.

I also like the idea of rogues that are very skilled with their weapons, or battle mages decked out in full armor, or Warriors that are also trained in the ability to assassinate people. Anything that a player really wants to try out they can.

I think healing is something that a lot of people find boring, and as such I used more of a vitality/wounds type system that I originally saw in SWd20 (but I modified it to my own liking). Healing is very restricted during combat, but after combat healing can be accomplished with some abilities.

Really I want this system to have less rules so that it dosen't get all bogged down in numbers. I'd rather have the basics fleshed out and then make decisions on the fly for whatever creative thing the players come up with.I agree on the D&D magic system... I've never been much of a fan of Vancian magic.

Since it sounds like you're familiar with it, I won't try and talk you out of making your own system, but that sounds alot like GURPS ... If I had to guess, I say that you probably have decided that either

you find GURPS WAY too deadly to run a combat centric campaign, even with the cinematic rules;
There's else something specific to the system that you're not a fan of
that you want to preserve the idea leveling (to give people an out of game goal).
or you're the type of person who likes the mental exercise of creating an RPG system

[Tormsskull]

There's else something specific to the system that you're not a fan of
that you want to preserve the idea leveling (to give people an out of game goal).
or you're the type of person who likes the mental exercise of creating an RPG system


Those 3 all apply. Also, when I tried to get my group to try GURPS before they had a hard time with the dice. They are so used to d20 for attack and such. I changed that up a little bit, but made it so that it is still familiar to them.

I figure if I can get my group to give my system a few chances, then maybe I'll try to get other groups to try it (I'd supply the module for whoever GMs it, or they could make their own), and see where it goes from there.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Assumptions like what? The only ones I can think of are

You need a way to model characters and their abilities
You need a way to determine success/failure/how effective something is (whether it's player or DM fiat, or closely controlled by rules)



How about:

A character's chance of success in a given task should be related to how good that character is at doing that sort of thing. The probability of success should be roughly the same in any genre given the same basic level of competence.

A character's chances of dying in combat should be based on whether or not they get hit, and what sort of weapon their opponent was using.

A player's contribution to the game is limited strictly to the description of the actions which his character attempts to perform. He is not allowed to dictate the wider consequences of those actions.

A PCs stats exist to model the PC as an entity in the gameworld, and for no other reason.

And so on.


Which are both pretty much required for any rpg (though the methodology varies widely)

They aren't, actually.


The basic book allows for player/GM created skills, and as I recall, GURPS Chthullu and GURPS Pulp have a couple sets of rules for sanity, and suggestions on how to create your own.

There's a world of difference between "player/GM created skills" as an optional "if you need a skill that isn't in the skill list" rule and a system in which skills are player defined by default.


why not? Use the basic rules, or one of the many variants, or make your own. You can get exactly what you want.

No, I can't. I can get GURPs.


About the only thing that the system doesn't handle well is weird rules for the sake of weird rules.

You see what you call "weird rules for the sake of weird rules" I call "integral parts of the game system, underpinning the reason that I can't just use GURPs instead."

[Dausuul]

I agree on the D&D magic system... I've never been much of a fan of Vancian magic.

Since it sounds like you're familiar with it, I won't try and talk you out of making your own system, but that sounds alot like GURPS ... If I had to guess, I say that you probably have decided that either

you find GURPS WAY too deadly to run a combat centric campaign, even with the cinematic rules;
There's else something specific to the system that you're not a fan of
that you want to preserve the idea leveling (to give people an out of game goal).
or you're the type of person who likes the mental exercise of creating an RPG system


I can't speak for Tormsskull, but here are the reasons I'm inventing my own system instead of using GURPS:

#1. GURPS is far too numbers-heavy. I want something lighter and less rigid, where the mechanical aspects of character creation take only a few minutes and whipping up NPC stats can be done on the fly.
#2. In my experience with GURPS, it doesn't scale well at the higher power levels. I want something that lends itself to heroic fantasy.
#3. GURPS lacks a well-developed social mechanic. I want social situations to involve more than a single skill check.
#4. I value a lot of abilities at very different levels from GURPS. For instance, take the D&D lich's ability to self-resurrect 1d10 days after dying. In GURPS, you pay through the nose (150 character points, last time I checked) to get something like that. But considering that the player of a dead character will simply come back with a new character next week, I don't consider a self-resurrection ability to be all that powerful and I don't want it to be nearly as expensive as GURPS makes it.
#5. GURPS has very little in the way of mechanics to encourage role-playing and immersion. All it's got are the mental disadvantages, and all those do is whack you upside the head every so often when you slip out of character.
#6. I don't like the GURPS magic system. I hate battery-powered magic, though not as much as I hate Vancian magic. (By "battery-powered magic," I mean a system in which a wizard has X amount of mana and spends Y of it to cast a spell. The very concept of "mana" annoys the hell out of me.)
#7. Perhaps most important, GURPS has no soul. Everything is reduced to bland numbers, advantages, and disadvantages. The names are as dull and un-evocative as they could possibly be. There is no sense of the mystic or the fantastic. Even D&D, over-complex tactical wargame that it is, does a better job at evoking wonder.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Leveling up increases the skill cap.

Here is an example:

Sample Characters:

The Warrior – The classic front-line combatant laden with heavy armor, a huge weapon, and the desire to dish out as much damage as possible.
Race: Eqar
Attributes: Agility 40, Endurance 80, Strength 100, Intellect 45, Personality 65, Willpower 30, Spirit 50.
Skills: Off. Training(1), Def. Training(1), Polearms(1), Weapon Training (Polearms)(1), Heavy Armor(1), Armor Training (Heavy Armor)(1), Second Attack(1), Spears(1).


Each of the sample character's skills are maxed out at level 1. As soon as the character gains any skill points at all, he can purchase level 2 skills. From there on out it is 25 points/level. I did this specifically so that players wouldn't have to wait until they accumulated 25 points in order to spend them.

What effect do those skills actually have, compared to the Attributes? How much better is "Offensive Training 1" compared to "Offensive Training 0"


It probably sounds confusing in text, but I could explain it orally much easier. Basically a character at creation is restricted to level 1 in any skill. As soon as they gain skill points they can level any of their skills that they can afford up to level 2. In order to take skills up to level 3 they have to have 50 total points (including the ones they have already spent).

So:
Level 1 requires 0 points. (25 total)
Level 2 requires 1 point. (26 total)
Level 3 requires 25 points. (50 total)
Level 4 requires 50 points. (75 total)
Level 5 requires 75 points. (100 total)
etc...

Okay, that makes sense. So there's no other benefits to gaining a level?


I know what you mean, but I am hesitant to do that because it restricts the player's choices. I have skills called Offense Training and Defensive Training in my system, and while most people who have a lot to do with combat will probably keep them maxed at all times, some people might not. Someone planning on playing a ranged combatant might not want to spend points on Defensive Training as they feel they won't get attacked often enough to justify the cost, they rather spend their points on something else.

Hmm...

Something that strikes me about this system is that there don't seem to be any half-measures. Assuming you start at level one, you have to either max a skill (by putting a point in it) or ignore it. Players being the creatures they are, it also strikes me as unlikely that they will bother diversifying much out of their initial skill choices, since they're going to be wanting to pump them as high as possible.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do wonder what it will mean for specialists. Judging by your warrior, above, it looks as if a specialist will have a large number of similar skills, rather than a smaller number of skills at higher levels.


This is true, but I have already informed the play testers that what I am doing is running a play test session. This isn't part of a campaign at this point, it is just a one-shot in order to test out some of the mechanics, see what kind of characters the players build, give me a feel on what the players think of it, etc. If someone showed up to a play test session with a character that refused to go along with the adventure I'd bop them in the head.

It's not just a question of refusing to go along with the adventure, though, it's a question of not being capable of making a contribution.

If you create your character expecting the Shawshank Redemption, and you wind up in the middle of Die Hard, you're going to have a problem.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Ok, so basically I need to tailor the encounters to the characters.

Best way to balance any game, ever, to be honest.

[Tormsskull]

What effect do those skills actually have, compared to the Attributes? How much better is "Offensive Training 1" compared to "Offensive Training 0"


Offensive Training (0) nets you a +0 Attack.
Offensive Training (1) nets you a +3 Attack.
Offensive Training (2) nets you a +6 Attack.
etc.

Attack is added to your roll (d100) to see if you score a hit by surpassing the opponent's Defense.



Okay, that makes sense. So there's no other benefits to gaining a level?


Not as of yet. I'm not sure exactly how I want to handle gaining more vitality (hit points) as of yet. At first I was tieing it to level, but I think I'm going to move it to a skill.



Something that strikes me about this system is that there don't seem to be any half-measures. Assuming you start at level one, you have to either max a skill (by putting a point in it) or ignore it. Players being the creatures they are, it also strikes me as unlikely that they will bother diversifying much out of their initial skill choices, since they're going to be wanting to pump them as high as possible.


Yeah, I had assumed that would be the case for some players. They are more than free to do just that, and they might do so to build the archetype characters. Players who wants to be different though, will likely pick a skill because it is something they are more interested in.



That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do wonder what it will mean for specialists. Judging by your warrior, above, it looks as if a specialist will have a large number of similar skills, rather than a smaller number of skills at higher levels.


Well, the thing to remember about specialists in this system is that they can only advance so far, based on their level. And past level 1 for the warrior he will not have to continue advancing Polearms(1), or Spears(1), as they skills represent a basic proficiency with the specified weapon. Assuming that the example warrior always keeps his skills at max, that will still free up a few points that they'll have to decide where to go.



It's not just a question of refusing to go along with the adventure, though, it's a question of not being capable of making a contribution.

If you create your character expecting the Shawshank Redemption, and you wind up in the middle of Die Hard, you're going to have a problem.

True, that's why I'll make sure to reiterate to them that the module does feature combat as one of its main elements. As I said though, I am going to try to work every skill into the module so that it can have its chance to shine. Combat skills I won't worry about because they always have their chance to shine (whenever combat occurs).

I like the idea of the characters taking a variety of skills, as that allows me more of a chance to see how those skills work in actual game play. So while I don't expect anyone to not take any combat skills, I am hoping someone is willing to try out come of the magic, and someone is willing to try out some of the non-combat skills, etc.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Offensive Training (0) nets you a +0 Attack.
Offensive Training (1) nets you a +3 Attack.
Offensive Training (2) nets you a +6 Attack.
etc.

Attack is added to your roll (d100) to see if you score a hit by surpassing the opponent's Defense.


+3 on a D% check doesn't seem like very much to me. It's less than +1 on a D20. Is it cumulative with other abilities?


Not as of yet. I'm not sure exactly how I want to handle gaining more vitality (hit points) as of yet. At first I was tieing it to level, but I think I'm going to move it to a skill.

If you're planning on the game being combat-focused, I'd tie it to level.


Yeah, I had assumed that would be the case for some players. They are more than free to do just that, and they might do so to build the archetype characters. Players who wants to be different though, will likely pick a skill because it is something they are more interested in.

Fair enough. Will a 3% bonus be a suitable return on investment for those players, though?


Well, the thing to remember about specialists in this system is that they can only advance so far, based on their level. And past level 1 for the warrior he will not have to continue advancing Polearms(1), or Spears(1), as they skills represent a basic proficiency with the specified weapon. Assuming that the example warrior always keeps his skills at max, that will still free up a few points that they'll have to decide where to go.

Sounds reasonable, although that does leave me wondering how characters created under this system will actually *differ* from each other after a level or two.

Even if you have an enormous skill list, you'll probably wind up with a small enough number of useful skills that most people can invest in most of them. Which means you might wind up with a game that works a bit like Oblivion, where everybody winds up as a Fighter-Thief-Spellcaster.

[Dairun Cates]

I actually recently had to create a point-based system for some friends based on another one. The previous system (BESM 3rd edition) is horrendously balanced. It's literally impossible for at least one of your players to NOT break the game so bad it makes you cry. Still, at least at character creation, I think I've managed to have a mostly balanced party without having any superstars in the party. This is with almost a complete lack of benchmarks. What's the secret?

The characters are all still broken. However, because of the way I designed it, they're all broken in about the same way, but in different categories. So, everyone has their own specialization, but also their own major weakness. The tanks spent points on armor so they die slow, but they can't hit to save their life. On the other hand, one of the other characters has insane to hit, but has sub-par defense and abysmal damage output. Yet another character has amazing damage output, but he can only do it a couple of times, and he has a bad defense roll. Probably the only two characters that might be broken past the party are the mage because he has armor through another template, and the cleric, because his talents are higher than the rest of the party. However, this is also slightly balanced by the fact that the cleric has no offense combat abilities at all.

Anyway, if they're all broken on an equal level, then I, as a GM, can just raise the encounters to that same level and it should theorhetically balance out. I think this is a decent way to balance in point based. However, if you're really worried that that kind of design thought won't work, you should keep these three hints in mind.

1. Create benchmarks. Players can't spend a certain amount of points in something until they reach a high enough level to do it. IE. No more than 20 points of teleportation until you reach 300 points total.

2. Keep a wary eye on the more potent powers. Even when expensive, they can be broken.

3. Make a character in your system before your players do. See how the balancing comes out to what you expected. Rebalance for any big issues.

[horseboy]

It sounds a lot like you're trying to combine Earthdawn, Rolemaster and 2nd edition Shadowrun.

With rolemaster 1 "level" in a skill will net +5, up until you hit +50, then it drops to +2. Looks like you're averaging out the gradient.

Earthdawn lets mages run around in full plate (if they should so want) and cast fireballs all day long. Also no healbot classes.

And Shadowrun was a classless/leveless skill based system.

As far as "balancing" them. Well, so long as the skills themselves are balanced, the easiest way is to make a balanced campaign. One that's equal parts combat, social subterfuge, sneaking and character downtime. Sure Mr. Street Samauri might have an 8 in firearms, but that's not going to get him any play at the club. For that he'll need Etiquette (club), Athletic (Dance), and Seduction. All so the other players will stop laughing at him for being the dateless wonder.

[Cybren]

Balance in point based systems is...
in the points.


Most RPGs aren't as combat focused as D&D; having only combat skills and abilities will be as useful as having no combat skills and abilities in the average GURPS campaign.

[Tormsskull]

+3 on a D% check doesn't seem like very much to me. It's less than +1 on a D20. Is it cumulative with other abilities?


Yes, it is cumulative with other abilities. The bonus to Attack from Offensive Training stacks with the bonus to Attack from Weapon Training (specific weapon), from a character's Agility stat (to hit only), a character's Strength stats (for damage only), and with the base Attack value of the weapon that the character is using.

+3 is not very much for this skill alone, but I did that purposely. In 3.5 D&D a +1 is equal to +5 on D%. So a character with a starting Strength of 18 will have a +20% to hit on level 1. That was very excessive to me, so I reduced the reliance on attributes and then introduced a variety of skills that can help in raising those numbers.



If you're planning on the game being combat-focused, I'd tie it to level.


Yeah, I'll have to take a close look at it.



Fair enough. Will a 3% bonus be a suitable return on investment for those players, though?


I think so. Some of the skills give the character special abilities (like magic or a stealth attack), others increase skills that anyone can use (like +3 to hit).

But, the playtesting will ultimately show that to me I am hoping.



Sounds reasonable, although that does leave me wondering how characters created under this system will actually *differ* from each other after a level or two.

Even if you have an enormous skill list, you'll probably wind up with a small enough number of useful skills that most people can invest in most of them. Which means you might wind up with a game that works a bit like Oblivion, where everybody winds up as a Fighter-Thief-Spellcaster.

Possibly, but I doubt it. The magic system is rather points-intensive, meaning that if a character wants to be a fighter and a spellcaster, they are going to have to sacrifice somewhere. They might be able to get Off. & Def. Training, Polearms, Weapon Training (Polearms), and then 1 or 2 spell groups, but that would be it for level 1. Someone going straight melee combat will spend those point used for magic to increase their melee combat even further, while a straight spell caster will purchase 4 or 5 spell groups and forget about all the melee stuff. Adding in thief type abilities would make it spread out even more.

But that's what I am aiming for. If someone wants to try to be the jack of all trades, they can certaintly do that, but they won't be really good at any 1 thing. And if someone wants to be really good at 1 specific thing, they won't be good at all at all the other things.



It sounds a lot like you're trying to combine Earthdawn, Rolemaster and 2nd edition Shadowrun.


I've seen the Rolemaster book before, but I haven't had any experience with the other too, and I've never actually played a campaign with any of the three systems.



As far as "balancing" them. Well, so long as the skills themselves are balanced, the easiest way is to make a balanced campaign. One that's equal parts combat, social subterfuge, sneaking and character downtime. Sure Mr. Street Samauri might have an 8 in firearms, but that's not going to get him any play at the club. For that he'll need Etiquette (club), Athletic (Dance), and Seduction. All so the other players will stop laughing at him for being the dateless wonder.


Yeah, I think that it the best way to do it. I'm not really big on social skills, because I think they are very difficult to utilize in a system. I don't have any Diplomacy abilities in my system, for example, but I do have a haggle skill, which helps you reduce to the price that a shopkeeper would charge. But instead of relying on exact hard and fast numbers, I use the NPC shopkeepers personality, intellect, and mood to reflect his response.

[Jayabalard]

A character's chance of success in a given task should be related to how good that character is at doing that sort of thing. The probability of success should be roughly the same in any genre given the same basic level of competence.There are other mechanics for success/failure in GURPS, and several of them are specific to a genre (though they're pretty much fully portable, since it's a generic system).


A character's chances of dying in combat should be based on whether or not they get hit, and what sort of weapon their opponent was using.Even in the basic book there are cinematic rules... there are several books that flesh those out genre by genre.


A player's contribution to the game is limited strictly to the description of the actions which his character attempts to perform. He is not allowed to dictate the wider consequences of those actions.That is the standard rule for GURPS, but there are alternate rules where this isn't the case.

and I can't think of a single RPG other than free form and perhaps the munchkin rpg where there isn't some sort of limitation on what the player can declare.


A PCs stats exist to model the PC as an entity in the gameworld, and for no other reason.Yup, GURPS does that; I had the first part of it on my list, as "You need a way to model characters and their abilities" no?

Are there systems where PC stats exist for some other purpose? I can't think of any off the top of my head.


They aren't, actually.Please list a few gaming systems where there isn't anything to model the player's character, and there isn't anything to determine success/failure/effectiveness of that character's actions. I'm not familiar with them and I'd love to take a look at them.

Though if you don't have a character, it's not really an RPG, and if you don't have any way to measure success/failure/effectiveness, I'm not sure I'd even agree that it's a game.


There's a world of difference between "player/GM created skills" as an optional "if you need a skill that isn't in the skill list" rule and a system in which skills are player defined by default.Sorry, I don't see the difference... there's nothing limiting the player on what they call their skills/abilities/whatever in gurps (or even in D&D for that matter).


#6. I don't like the GURPS magic system. I hate battery-powered magic, though not as much as I hate Vancian magic. (By "battery-powered magic," I mean a system in which a wizard has X amount of mana and spends Y of it to cast a spell. The very concept of "mana" annoys the hell out of me.)
#7. Perhaps most important, GURPS has no soul. Everything is reduced to bland numbers, advantages, and disadvantages. The names are as dull and un-evocative as they could possibly be. There is no sense of the mystic or the fantastic. Even D&D, over-complex tactical wargame that it is, does a better job at evoking wonder.
re 6: You of course mean the standard magic system, rather than one of the variant ones, right? The standard GURPS magic system uses fatigue, and though the difference between that and "mana" in other systems is largely semantic, I kind of like the fact that you can wear yourself out or knock yourself out casing spells.

Since you don't like battery or Vancian magic, what magic system do you prefer?

re: 7: I'm not certain what you mean.... certainly the system doesn't supply flashy, genre specific names for things; that's part of keeping things simple and clear across multiple genre's. Nothing at all restricts players and GMs from giving skills/spells/Psi/powers/etc more specific names; quite the contrary, it's encouraged in several books. Really, it's whatever you make of it.

[Dausuul]

re 6: You of course mean the standard magic system, rather than one of the variant ones, right? The standard GURPS magic system uses fatigue, and though the difference between that and "mana" in other systems is largely semantic, I kind of like the fact that you can wear yourself out or knock yourself out casing spells.

Since you don't like battery or Vancian magic, what magic system do you prefer?

For "wizard magic" (that is, magic cast by professional spellcasters as opposed to magic that is innate to a character), my ideal system is one in which you deal with unpredictable and unreliable spirits, each with its own agenda. Casting a spell means invoking one of these beings, and the results can range from the spell working just as you want it to, to the spell failing and the power in question refusing to respond to further invocations, to the spell failing and you being punished in some fashion. The chances of each of the above depend on the spirit you are invoking, whether your actions are in line with its agenda, and what sort of offerings (if any) you make to appease the spirit.

There is an element of this to the standard GURPS magic, which can blow up in your face, but seldom does; the primary limiting factor there is fatigue and powerstone energy. Moreover, standard GURPS magic (I'm not familiar offhand with the variants) does not involve the source of a wizard's magic having a purpose and a will of its own.

Magic that is innate to a character just works, no power sources required. That type of magic, GURPS handles fairly well in the form of supernatural and racial advantages.


re: 7: I'm not certain what you mean.... certainly the system doesn't supply flashy, genre specific names for things; that's part of keeping things simple and clear across multiple genre's. Nothing at all restricts players and GMs from giving skills/spells/Psi/powers/etc more specific names; quite the contrary, it's encouraged in several books. Really, it's whatever you make of it.

So... you suggest going through all the rulebooks, scratching out all the names, and writing in new ones? And then cutting the rulebooks into pieces and re-organizing them so the entries are in alphabetical order and it's possible to look stuff up? I've seen this idea proposed several times, and it is frankly silly. If a given skill is in the rulebook as "chemistry," calling it "alchemy" and then making everyone remember that "alchemy" in-game equals "chemistry" in the rulebook is far more hassle than any gaming group is likely to put up with.

The Player's Handbook may suggest that Lidda refer to "move silently" as "footpaddin'," but I have never yet seen anyone call for, or roll, a "footpaddin'" check. The name in the rulebook is the name people use.

And yes, bland neutral names are required to keep things clear across genres. That's one of the reasons I dislike games that try to be all genres at once.

[Tormsskull]

The Player's Handbook may suggest that Lidda refer to "move silently" as "footpaddin'," but I have never yet seen anyone call for, or roll, a "footpaddin'" check. The name in the rulebook is the name people use.


That's because the name of the check its self is OOC, and the name that the character refers to it as, is IC. My group has actually done stuff like that, and in my experience it really helps to separate the OOC from the IC, and vice versa.

As far as the clunkiness of reorganizing a rulebook, I would agree with you on that. But we have always made the names character-dependent. That is that if the skill is called Chemistry, one of the characters make call it Brewing, and one may call it Alchemy, etc. Therefore the GM calls for a Chemistry check, but the character would tell the other characters they they successfully brewed or successuly alchemized (making up words here) whatever.

[Jayabalard]

For "wizard magic" (that is, magic cast by professional spellcasters as opposed to magic that is innate to a character), my ideal system is one in which you deal with unpredictable and unreliable spirits, each with its own agenda. Casting a spell means invoking one of these beings, and the results can range from the spell working just as you want it to, to the spell failing and the power in question refusing to respond to further invocations, to the spell failing and you being punished in some fashion. The chances of each of the above depend on the spirit you are invoking, whether your actions are in line with its agenda, and what sort of offerings (if any) you make to appease the spirit.

There is an element of this to the standard GURPS magic, which can blow up in your face, but seldom does; the primary limiting factor there is fatigue and powerstone energy. Moreover, standard GURPS magic (I'm not familiar offhand with the variants) does not involve the source of a wizard's magic having a purpose and a will of its own.In general, that sounds like it's a hard system to make rules for.

I'm an edition behind the current, but iirc GURPS magic has some variants along those lines, but you'd have to tweak it a bit to get exactly what you want (I could be wrong, there may be something exactly like that in one of the sourcebooks)).

Just making magic work for mages as if the world was a very high magic area would cover alot of that... any failure would count as a critical failure in normal magic would, and critical failures fail spectacularly. Rule in that there's always some sort of spirit/demon/whatever involved; require them to either roleplay the conversation with thier power source to cast the spell, or use appropriate skills (fast talk, diplomacy, whatever).


Magic that is innate to a character just works, no power sources required. That type of magic, GURPS handles fairly well in the form of supernatural and racial advantages.Knacks from gurps magic, and powers from gurps supers fit into that as well


So... you suggest going through all the rulebooks, scratching out all the names, and writing in new ones? Not at all... just use the changed name on the character sheet, and reference the gurps standard name/book/page # if it's something you actually are going to need to reference. Most things won't need any sort of reference, since how they work is pretty straightforward.

it might be a bit cumbersome for the first session or so, but it doesn't take long to remember that "sneakin" is the stealth skill, or that when you "use your six demon bag: fire... wind ... all that kind of thing" you're casting a fireball.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yes, it is cumulative with other abilities. The bonus to Attack from Offensive Training stacks with the bonus to Attack from Weapon Training (specific weapon), from a character's Agility stat (to hit only), a character's Strength stats (for damage only), and with the base Attack value of the weapon that the character is using.

Ah, if the Attack Training is cumulative with specific weapon training, that helps a lot.


+3 is not very much for this skill alone, but I did that purposely. In 3.5 D&D a +1 is equal to +5 on D%. So a character with a starting Strength of 18 will have a +20% to hit on level 1. That was very excessive to me, so I reduced the reliance on attributes and then introduced a variety of skills that can help in raising those numbers.

How are your Attributes generated?


I think so. Some of the skills give the character special abilities (like magic or a stealth attack), others increase skills that anyone can use (like +3 to hit).

Do the different sorts of skills have a different points cost, because in general "you can do something nobody else can" is going to be way better than "you can do what everybody else can do, only slightly better.


Possibly, but I doubt it. The magic system is rather points-intensive, meaning that if a character wants to be a fighter and a spellcaster, they are going to have to sacrifice somewhere. They might be able to get Off. & Def. Training, Polearms, Weapon Training (Polearms), and then 1 or 2 spell groups, but that would be it for level 1. Someone going straight melee combat will spend those point used for magic to increase their melee combat even further, while a straight spell caster will purchase 4 or 5 spell groups and forget about all the melee stuff. Adding in thief type abilities would make it spread out even more.

Basically what I'm wondering is whether going "straight melee combat" will prove to be a worthwhile investment.

If you have already maxed out (say) Attack, Defence, and Sword training, is a bit of training in Polearms as well going to have much benefit compared to branching out into magic?


But that's what I am aiming for. If someone wants to try to be the jack of all trades, they can certaintly do that, but they won't be really good at any 1 thing. And if someone wants to be really good at 1 specific thing, they won't be good at all at all the other things.

That's what I'm trying to work out though. Because the skill limits are so harsh, I don't see how much option you have to specialize in one area. Or rather, you *can* specialize in one area, but only in the sense of being able to do a lot of similar things, rather than a lot of different things.

As far as I can tell from what I've seen, a character with Offensive Training 1, Sword Training 1, Polearm Training 1, Dagger Training 1, Axe Training 1 is still no better in a fight than a character with, say Offensive Training 1, Sword Training 1, and a bunch of other skills.

[Dan_Hemmens]

re: 7: I'm not certain what you mean.... certainly the system doesn't supply flashy, genre specific names for things; that's part of keeping things simple and clear across multiple genre's. Nothing at all restricts players and GMs from giving skills/spells/Psi/powers/etc more specific names; quite the contrary, it's encouraged in several books. Really, it's whatever you make of it.

That's sort of the point though. If I'm going to have to make it into whatever I want it to be *anyway*, why not just make what I want from scratch.

And it's not just that GURPS doesn't have "flashy genre specific names for things", it's that (as far as I understand it) it doesn't revise its core assumptions to account for different styles of play.

The point is that I want a swashbuckling game to play differently to a horror game. Not just in the sense of having a couple of different subsystems, or of changing the damage caused by particular effects, but by being designed, from the ground up, to create exactly the experience it's trying to reproduce.

"Cinematic" GURPs is going to be less good for Action Movie style roleplaying than Feng Shui, which is designed for it from the ground up (heck, you admit yourself that even cinematic GURPs has a deadly combat system). GURPS Wuxia, if such a thing even existed, wouldn't be a patch on Weapons of the Gods. And there would be absolutely no point whatsoever in "GURPS: Dogs in the Vineyard" or "GURPS: Burning Wheel".

[Tormsskull]

How are your Attributes generated?


I have a few different methods listed. There is a rolling method, a set stats method, and point-buy ripoff method. The stats range between 1 and 100. The stats are modeled on percentages of humans. Meaning that if your strength is 75, you are in the top 25% strongest humans in the world (regardless of your race). The model Eqar I listed has a 100 Strength (the race gets +20 to Strength), and as such is as strong as the strongest human in the world (not taking into consideration magical bonuses from spells or magic items).



Do the different sorts of skills have a different points cost, because in general "you can do something nobody else can" is going to be way better than "you can do what everybody else can do, only slightly better.


Yeah. Spell groups take 5 points per level, and you must have at least 1 level in each spell group to cast a spell from that group. Other skills like Assassinate, Second Attack, Third Attack, etc have high point costs. If a character doesn't have a level in Assassinate, he cannot attempt to assassinate anyone. If he has at least 1 level, he gets access to the ability (but it won't necessarily be any good with only 1 level versus higher level monsters).



Basically what I'm wondering is whether going "straight melee combat" will prove to be a worthwhile investment.

If you have already maxed out (say) Attack, Defence, and Sword training, is a bit of training in Polearms as well going to have much benefit compared to branching out into magic?


Good question. My initial thought is that I it will, but I'm hoping the playtesting will shed more light on that. Polearms are designed to be the most powerful weapons, and thus cost the most points just to know how to use them. Straight combat is hard to judge because there are a lot of different combat type skills like parry, dodge, weapon master, hand to hand, martial arts, and many more. A character will not have enough points to cover all angles of "melee combat". If a character spent several points in combat but then purchased one spell group, he'd miss out of 1 or 2 (possibly) more combat type skills.

So the trade off between straight combat and mostly combat with 1 spell group I believe would be noticeable.



As far as I can tell from what I've seen, a character with Offensive Training 1, Sword Training 1, Polearm Training 1, Dagger Training 1, Axe Training 1 is still no better in a fight than a character with, say Offensive Training 1, Sword Training 1, and a bunch of other skills.

That's true. If a character took several of the weapon skills (Polearm, sword, dagger, etc) all that would do is give them the option of using each of those types of weapons. That would make the character more versatile, but speaking frankly, most of the time that is not going to be a huge advantage. But knowing more than 1 type of weapon isn't bad either because it might come in handy down the road.

A character with 1 weapon (say Swords), Off. Training, Def. Training, Weapon Training (Sword), Heavy Armor, Armor Training (Heavy Armor) versus a character with Swords, Off. Training, Def. Training, Heavy Armor, and then 1 spell group would be somewhat different. The first receives an additional +3 Attack and + 3 Defense (while utilizing the appropriate weapon and armor, respectively) while the Second receives a few spells that they can utilize.

I don't want to go into great detail, but both melee and spell casters utilize the same pool of points to use their 'special moves'. This I call Focus. Focus returns to the character at a fairly fast rate, which means that a weapon-master/spell caster could potentially be using melee special moves and spells interchangably through the rounds, but will probably run out of Focus long before a straight melee build.

And the magic in this system is not the "I Win" type of magic as like in D&D, so it isn't as crucial to have magic. I think at first level, 2nd level, possibly even third level, characters won't be hugely different. But as they get into 5th, 6th, and above, I think there will be a stark contrast between them.

Comparing 1 spell group with Off. Training for example, 1 spell group costs 5 points/level while Off. Training costs 3/level. Therefore, a level 1 character with Off. Training versus 1 spell group has an additional 2 points to spend elsewhere. A 2 point difference might not seem like much, but it is enough to have a different skill of some sort maxed out.

[Cybren]

GURPS is less of a game and more of an engine for the GM to create the kind of game he wants.

[psychoticbarber]

I mostly play D&D these days, but I have a book that I use to help me that isn't a D&D book (gasp!)

It's the Hero System 5th Edition, aka "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit"

It's kind of like GURPS, in that it's one of those "bland, soul-less number books", but I use for the simple reason that it has balanced its powers.

Non-lethal damage? 5 points per d6.
Lethal damage? 15 points per d6
Area of Effect? Multiply the points by a fixed value
Doesn't work on Elves/Maidens/Your mother? Divide the points by a fixed value.

You get the idea.
I use it to homebrew/balance spells for D&D, recently, though it models a bunch of other things. It's a great tool, and at about $50 Canadian, it's not a bad deal.

That being said, as has been said above, the ultimate game balancer is the GM. Nothing beats a well-planned encounter that allows your Party Faces and Thwack-Mongers to shine equally.