So I've been trying to write my own RPG...

[Arkynata]

Hi!

For several years I've been trying to write my own RPG, but it feels like I am not getting anywhere. I think it is because I don't have anyone who can give me feedback, or with whom I can discuss rule design and lore.

I have friends who are interested in RPG, but sadly not interested enough. Believe me, I have talked their ears off.

So I conclude that I will probably have to look outside my social circle to find someone willing to give constructive critique. That's why I am posting here.

Now, I know that giving earnest feedback is hard work, it's basically collaboration. Doing it for a complete stranger might also seem like a waste of time to some, understandably so.

I'm also a bit afraid to share; having your creative darlings criticized is hard. I'm feeling a flight reflex just writing this. And I know what I have is a mess, a jumble of ideas, rules and text with nothing really finished.

So I am tentatively testing the waters like a deer, hoping there's nothing down there that will bite.

[CaptainSarathai]

Not really the best intro there, but that's okay.

Why are you writing your own RPG? There are tons of established games on the market, all offering all sorts of different flavors and mechanics. So really, I guess, what are you looking for, or what sets your game apart?

Are you looking to market your game, or anything like that? Or are you just writing a game with the intent of entertaining your friends and playing something tailor made for what you all enjoy?

I've helped out designing a few wargames and board games, with varying levels of success.
Right now, for marketability, I think that "Simple" is the tagline to go by. The best and most successful games on the market right now are very 'rules lite' systems. I think that this has something to do with videogames, where you don't have to sit down and read a lengthy rulebook just to understand the game. The problem with this is that RPGs are either very open and 'barely there' like FATE, or they are super crunchy, like D20 or Pathfinder. I think 5e struck a good balance here, as the mechanics are reasonably simple, but still offer enough depth to be considered a game and not just "guided storytelling."

So what's your idea? What kind of elements are you looking to put into your game?

[Arkynata]

Not really the best intro there, but that's okay.

Yeah, probably not. Self-confidence / self-selling is not my strongest point.



Why are you writing your own RPG? There are tons of established games on the market, all offering all sorts of different flavors and mechanics. So really, I guess, what are you looking for, or what sets your game apart?

Because I find it fun, I like toying with the ideas, I like writing lore, I like drawing and painting monsters and maps. I want to create a game that can handle a more low-fantasy setting with more focus on immersion. I also want magic / religion to be more inspired by how we've imagined that to work through history. I.e superstition and mysticism.



Are you looking to market your game, or anything like that? Or are you just writing a game with the intent of entertaining your friends and playing something tailor made for what you all enjoy?


Marketing is not a goal. I want to create something I can play with friends, or host online.



I've helped out designing a few wargames and board games, with varying levels of success.
Right now, for marketability, I think that "Simple" is the tagline to go by. The best and most successful games on the market right now are very 'rules lite' systems. I think that this has something to do with videogames, where you don't have to sit down and read a lengthy rulebook just to understand the game. The problem with this is that RPGs are either very open and 'barely there' like FATE, or they are super crunchy, like D20 or Pathfinder. I think 5e struck a good balance here, as the mechanics are reasonably simple, but still offer enough depth to be considered a game and not just "guided storytelling."

So what's your idea? What kind of elements are you looking to put into your game?

I want a rule system that enable a consistent, immersive world.
What I think will work best with that is a skill-based rather than class-based system.

A big thing is that I want magic to be much more part of the world itself.

In other words; it follows rules that seem intuitive to the superstitious part of our mind. Heavy on symbolism and "the part affects the whole and vice versa". Most magic includes some kind of physical action. Making circles, carving figures, eating burning coal, etc. Done in the right way, seemingly mundane acts conjure magic.

How I'm trying to make this work mechanically is that there are a few base spells which are fairly broad and can have various applications. More advanced spells require you to know one of the base spells and might have some skill requirement (such as craft for making voodoo dolls or the like).

The base spells are:

Fervor (trance/berserk like. you can inure yourself to pain and fatigue, leads to fire and blood related magic)
Icon (the art of making magic symbols, runes and figurines. the base spell gives minor effects, but I've tried to avoid simple +skill bonuses and I go for things like "the mage can always sense in what direction the object is")
Mesmer (hypnotism/suggestion)
Aura (interacting with spirits, leads to things like speak with dead)
Curse (giving a victim misfortune or disease, leads to baneful and malefic magic)

This I hope will create a kind of progression which makes sense in-lore. "Since I know how to make Icons and cast Curses, I can now learn to make Effigies to curse my enemies from afar."

I am not a big fan of the way D&D handled the separation of magic and martial, as well as arcane and divine. I know the reason why they didn't want mages in plate armor throwing fireballs, but their in-lore reasoning is not that immersive.

So I don't want to restrict players from using both martial and magical means, and therefore I try to avoid writing spells that deal direct damage, and rather focus on the utility of magic. The reason why mages in my setting rarely wear armor is not because they can't cast spells in it, but rather because unless they expect to fight in melee it is money they can spend elsewhere.

When it comes to divine magic and religion, I don't intend to make any real distinction between kinds of magic. Blessings from the gods follows the same rules. Instead of being learned spells they are gifts that you can get from entering pacts with spiritual beings (the paladin code could be an example of this) or rewards for service to a particular deity.



So that's a bit of what I want to achieve.

I've playtested a version with my friends, and even though they seem to enjoy it, I feel it is far too threadbare ("guided storytelling" perhaps). I'm uncertain of how much of it I want to keep and how much I want to rework.

What is a more realistic / immersive attribute system? Does it have to be value based? Can you do away with attributes altogether and just have skills? What other ways are there to describe a persons physical and mental makeup...?

I have similar thoughts about combat systems and I find it hard to decide on anything without input, or someone to discuss it with.

I do also realize that focusing on realism / immersion might be a roundabout way to design a game, and I understand that you have to make sacrifices in that area for the sake of simplicity and fun. So I am not completely unflinching in that regard.

[Anonymouswizard]

A handful of things.

Yes, you can do way with Attributes entirely, several games do! Fate only has one category of 'how good am I at actions', although exactly what they are varies with the build (skills/approaches/professions are the ones I've seen). In Legends of the Wulin there are no attributes, in-combat stuff is mainly covered by Kung Fu and out of combat stuff is mainly covered by Skills (with some overlap). The latest edition of Unknown Armies has removed it's Attributes entirely, having ten basic skills linked to the five Madness meters and then players can take 'identities' (essentially broad DIY skills). I'm currently planning a system that doesn't use either Attributes or Skills, instead you pick your character's religion and use the associated virtues to do stuff (inspired by reading Pendragon and being disappointed at how underused I thought the personality traits are).

The magic system is interesting, but I'm not 100% sure how it all works. If I have both Icons and Curses do I have to buy Effigies as a separate thing, or can I just develop it without investing skill/experience/character/thingamabob points?

On getting rid of the D&D martial/magic and arcane/divine divide, many games do. Especially outside of class-based games there's no reason why a warrior would be unable to learn any spells or a mage unable to heal.

Out of interest, have you played any games other than D&D? Because it might be worthwhile to play a few games which go for a very different set of Assumptions, such as Fate or GURPS.

[Zakier]

As above, I second Fate and GURPS. Even if you donthink actually play some games read through the systems. The srd for both is available online and gives you a good run down.

Many other systems offer some of what you are wanting. I too am building a game because I like to and I want something me and my friends would enjoy. I'm 58 pages in with their input and been working this time only a couple months.

There's no reason Mages can't wear armor. Properly fitted armor is not as clunky as people seem to think. With practice, anyone can do almost anything in armor they could normally do out of it.

Keep in mind that 3.5 D&D really messed up balancing melee and magic. Past level 7, Magic rules. Melee gets worse and worse. The problem wasn't that magic did too much damage, it was that melee damage never increases, Feats are rare, actions limited, and the Crafting system to be able to simply make better weapons with bonus damage on them was so complicated Noone ever used it.

Fix those problems with your game and it'll be easier to adjust later.

[Arkynata]

First of all, thank you for your kind replies.


Yes, you can do way with Attributes entirely, several games do! Fate only has one category of 'how good am I at actions', although exactly what they are varies with the build (skills/approaches/professions are the ones I've seen). In Legends of the Wulin there are no attributes, in-combat stuff is mainly covered by Kung Fu and out of combat stuff is mainly covered by Skills (with some overlap).

That sounds interesting, thanks! :)
I'll find the time to read the rulebooks, are there any other RPGs you would recommend?


The magic system is interesting, but I'm not 100% sure how it all works. If I have both Icons and Curses do I have to buy Effigies as a separate thing, or can I just develop it without investing skill/experience/character/thingamabob points?

I haven't decided myself. When I playtested I simply had an thingamabob cost for each spell, it works well enough. But I have been pondering about introducing a ”mini-quest” system which you can complete when you forfill the prerequisites for the spell.

Examples are:
Seeking out a master who can teach you
Finding a particular spirit and communicate with it (like perhaps a dryad for a nature-related spell)
Some heroic / harrowing feat / ritual which will spark the insight

What I like about this idea is that it builds a narrative by itself, and it also fits very well with the kind of stories we tell. It mirrors the pilgrim monk who travels to Constantinople to learn from the ancient scholars.

There's some problems with this idea of course.
It's a bit difficult to make up interesting mini-quests for each spell, perhaps the best way to do it would be giving the GM a guideline for making up tasks that would fit with the current adventure. And it would likely become tedious to complete one of those EVERY time you want to learn something.
Perhaps I could combine it with the current system. I.e. you can learn spells by self-experimentation if you spend thingamabob points, but you get it for free or cheaper if you do a quest.

I could possibly also use this for martial skills as well, or really any exceptional ability.



On getting rid of the D&D martial/magic and arcane/divine divide, many games do. Especially outside of class-based games there's no reason why a warrior would be unable to learn any spells or a mage unable to heal.

Out of interest, have you played any games other than D&D? Because it might be worthwhile to play a few games which go for a very different set of Assumptions, such as Fate or GURPS.

I have played other RPGs than D&D, but it's what I have played the most, along derivatives of it. I brought it up because the game design reason why they separated magic from martial is a sound one; the best offensive abilities with the best defensive ones in one package? What could go wrong? It's just not very well anchored in the lore, as you point out. As Zakier pointed out, Armour did not limit one's movement as much as people think.



Keep in mind that 3.5 D&D really messed up balancing melee and magic. Past level 7, Magic rules. Melee gets worse and worse. The problem wasn't that magic did too much damage, it was that melee damage never increases, Feats are rare, actions limited, and the Crafting system to be able to simply make better weapons with bonus damage on them was so complicated No one ever used it.

Well that depends on how you see it, magic did more damage relative to martial. So saying they did too much damage isn't strictly wrong.

It is why I try to be very careful with what kind of effects I have for my spells. Part of the problem is also the raw utility magic offered, like flight, teleportation, healing, resurrection, summoning, polymorph, and so on and so on. An open lock or disarm trap spell can make the party's rogue feel a bit redundant. But this has probably been discussed to death already...



Fix those problems with your game and it'll be easier to adjust later.

I very much agree.

So I have some design rules I try to follow.

I limit damage and healing spells, I give them limitations and/or alternate uses. Fire can be used for
light and warmth, for example.

I try to avoid making utility spells that completely solves a problem by itself. Instead of an Open Lock spell I might make a spell that, for example, could allow you to ”feel” into solid objects, learning their form. That would give a lockpicker a nice bonus, but also has alternate uses.

I try to avoid ”flashy” spells. This is mostly to give the setting a consistent tone. I don't have anything against the power fantasy of throwing lightning bolts (hell I've enjoyed that a lot of times), but I feel like it would go against the goals I have. I can't exactly pinpoint what and why, lightning and fireballs out of nothing does not seem very superstitious to me.


Describing this to you makes me wonder if it's actually the setting that's the important thing to me... Really, if I found a game system that had combat and skill rules that fit, I would have no problems simply using that, and replacing their spells with my own.

[Anonymouswizard]

That sounds interesting, thanks! :)
I'll find the time to read the rulebooks, are there any other RPGs you would recommend?

It depends on what you've played, and what you're looking for, so my generic version is 'everything short of FATAL'.

For a slightly more detailed list, this is essentially my 'short list':
-Unknown Armies, for a very interesting take on magic that meshes well with the setting.
-GURPS, to see what a game more on the 'simulationist, gritty' end is like. If you want a D&D-like version Dungeon Fantasy is being made into a game-in-a-box, but Transhuman Space uses the system for a very interesting hard sci-fi setting.
-Fate, because it runs on different assumptions to most games.
-Tunnels & Trolls, for a lesson in how ignoring balance and focusing on fun can work for a specific type of game (I look fondly on my dwarf from the time I played).

Note that some of these use a fairly 'traditional' layout, but it gives a good base.


I haven't decided myself. When I playtested I simply had an thingamabob cost for each spell, it works well enough. But I have been pondering about introducing a ”mini-quest” system which you can complete when you forfill the prerequisites for the spell.

Examples are:
Seeking out a master who can teach you
Finding a particular spirit and communicate with it (like perhaps a dryad for a nature-related spell)
Some heroic / harrowing feat / ritual which will spark the insight

What I like about this idea is that it builds a narrative by itself, and it also fits very well with the kind of stories we tell. It mirrors the pilgrim monk who travels to Constantinople to learn from the ancient scholars.

There's some problems with this idea of course.
It's a bit difficult to make up interesting mini-quests for each spell, perhaps the best way to do it would be giving the GM a guideline for making up tasks that would fit with the current adventure. And it would likely become tedious to complete one of those EVERY time you want to learn something.
Perhaps I could combine it with the current system. I.e. you can learn spells by self-experimentation if you spend thingamabob points, but you get it for free or cheaper if you do a quest.

I could possibly also use this for martial skills as well, or really any exceptional ability.

This sounds interesting, although it could be very hard to balance.


I have played other RPGs than D&D, but it's what I have played the most, along derivatives of it. I brought it up because the game design reason why they separated magic from martial is a sound one; the best offensive abilities with the best defensive ones in one package? What could go wrong? It's just not very well anchored in the lore, as you point out. As Zakier pointed out, Armour did not limit one's movement as much as people think.

*cough* description of the 3.5 wizard *cough* Really, this isn't a major problem if both magic and mundane skills draw from the same pool of resources, the guy who focuses on martial skill and defensive magic can still feel useless compared to the character who bought decent skill with a sword, purchased heavy armour, and then sunk 60% of his points into skills (YMMV).


Well that depends on how you see it, magic did more damage relative to martial. So saying they did too much damage isn't strictly wrong.

It is why I try to be very careful with what kind of effects I have for my spells. Part of the problem is also the raw utility magic offered, like flight, teleportation, healing, resurrection, summoning, polymorph, and so on and so on. An open lock or disarm trap spell can make the party's rogue feel a bit redundant. But this has probably been discussed to death already...

You have two real options here.
1) sharply limit utility magic (or all magic). Heck in my game it takes a lot of resources to have access to more than one school of magic, and it's insanely hard to be good at several.
2) go the RuneQuest route and have everyone learn at least minor magic.


I very much agree.

So I have some design rules I try to follow.

I limit damage and healing spells, I give them limitations and/or alternate uses. Fire can be used for
light and warmth, for example.

I try to avoid making utility spells that completely solves a problem by itself. Instead of an Open Lock spell I might make a spell that, for example, could allow you to ”feel” into solid objects, learning their form. That would give a lockpicker a nice bonus, but also has alternate uses.

I try to avoid ”flashy” spells. This is mostly to give the setting a consistent tone. I don't have anything against the power fantasy of throwing lightning bolts (hell I've enjoyed that a lot of times), but I feel like it would go against the goals I have. I can't exactly pinpoint what and why, lightning and fireballs out of nothing does not seem very superstitious to me.


Describing this to you makes me wonder if it's actually the setting that's the important thing to me... Really, if I found a game system that had combat and skill rules that fit, I would have no problems simply using that, and replacing their spells with my own.

It's all fine, one of the reasons my game doesn't use the Fate system is that the Virtues system gets such insanely complex (I plan for a minimum of 6 'standard' faiths and 3 'shadow' faiths, all as PC options, all with different virtue lists) and so Aspects start to become redundant.