STaRS: the Simple TAbletop Roleplaying System 4.0

[GigaNerd17]

Glad it worked out for you! Do you have any specific feedback?

(Also, I can't open the document with your adjusted rules-- I don't have Openoffice)

What word processor are you using? If I can't find an appropriate file format for you, then I'll convert it into... an image? Yeah.

FEEDBACK:

--Near the end of the session, everyone was tired and we were short on time, so when they fought in the thieves' guild I ignored most of the set rules and relied only on checks. To my great surprise, it worked fantastically.

--It was never exactly clear in the rules at what point a simple social check evolves into a full-blown instance of social combat. Don't want to make players roll for initiative if they don't have to.

--Talent system works like a charm. I ended up with an awesome party of "Variable Cleansing Fire," "Volkskragen the Heirloom Claymore," "Animal Telepathy," and "Infinite Enchanted Javelins."

--To demonstrate how much the players loved the system, we were planning on playing 'til 8:30. We played 'til 10:20 instead. Great work, Grod! ;D
Of course, it could just mean that they just enjoyed playing RPG's, but given the amount of story we covered due to the ease of checks, I'll attribute this to the system instead.


...That's about it for now. New players don't tend to push boundaries. Any specific questions? Also, if you have any questions or comments about my personal rule adjustments, let me know.

[erikun]

You could also put it on Google Drive, which I think works in just about any browser.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What word processor are you using? If I can't find an appropriate file format for you, then I'll convert it into... an image? Yeah.

I've got Word.

--Near the end of the session, everyone was tired and we were short on time, so when they fought in the thieves' guild I ignored most of the set rules and relied only on checks. To my great surprise, it worked fantastically.

Hmm. Interesting.

--It was never exactly clear in the rules at what point a simple social check evolves into a full-blown instance of social combat. Don't want to make players roll for initiative if they don't have to.

Yeah, I can make a sidebar or something about that. Basically, the idea is that you should use full-combat rules if it seems too important to leave up to a single check. You don't have to roll initiative, really-- the damage rules are the parts that matter the most.

--Talent system works like a charm. I ended up with an awesome party of "Variable Cleansing Fire," "Volkskragen the Heirloom Claymore," "Animal Telepathy," and "Infinite Enchanted Javelins."

Great! The game I played only used Skills and Boosts, with one Companion. Those worked pretty well too.

--To demonstrate how much the players loved the system, we were planning on playing 'til 8:30. We played 'til 10:20 instead. Great work, Grod! ;D
Of course, it could just mean that they just enjoyed playing RPG's, but given the amount of story we covered due to the ease of checks, I'll attribute this to the system instead.

Thanks!

[GigaNerd17]

I've got Word.

Odd. Word shouldn't have any issue opening OpenOffice files. Here's a .doc version just in case, but it might have some formatting errors.

[Dunkoro]

Being aware that this may count as thread necromancy, I'd like to ask a few questions:

1. What was the reasoning behind choosing d10 as the base for the system?
2. Have you considered any rules for players to advance to another Level? If yes, how would that work?

[Grod_The_Giant]

1. What was the reasoning behind choosing d10 as the base for the system?

I started out using a d6, but I decided that d10's-- probably the second most common die type, at least in gamer circles-- were just... nicer. They give you a bit more range in potential ranks, and have easy-to-think-about probabilities.

2. Have you considered any rules for players to advance to another Level? If yes, how would that work?

See Boosts, under Talents and Flaws.

[Dunkoro]

I started out using a d6, but I decided that d10's-- probably the second most common die type, at least in gamer circles-- were just... nicer. They give you a bit more range in potential ranks, and have easy-to-think-about probabilities.

The same can be said about d20, why not use that instead?

See Boosts, under Talents and Flaws.

I meant not for the player to operate on a different level in regard to one ability, but to come to a different level altogether.

Also, you'd not have anything against me starting a campaign using STaRS, probably a PbP on these very forums, would you?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The same can be said about d20, why not use that instead?

10 is just a nice number. It's an arbitrary answer to an arbitrary question.

I meant not for the player to operate on a different level in regard to one ability, but to come to a different level altogether.

Ahh, gotcha. There best way to do that is to use a different scale, with a more powerful base level. For example, if you wanted to run a campaign where the players are all super-soldiers, you might set the Base Level for physical tasks at "lift a ton, run as fast as a car, and resist small arms fire," but leave the mental tasks where they were. (I'm working on a new draft that will hopefully make that sort of thing clearer)

Also, you'd not have anything against me starting a campaign using STaRS, probably a PbP on these very forums, would you?

On the contrary, I'm flattered. Please do, and let me know how it goes.

Though be aware, this coming month I'm going to be working on a new draft of the game. The rules aren't going to change much (if at all), but I hope to improve explanations and organization, and provide more examples. So, you know... watch this space.

[Dunkoro]

Ahh, gotcha. There best way to do that is to use a different scale, with a more powerful base level. For example, if you wanted to run a campaign where the players are all super-soldiers, you might set the Base Level for physical tasks at "lift a ton, run as fast as a car, and resist small arms fire," but leave the mental tasks where they were. (I'm working on a new draft that will hopefully make that sort of thing clearer)

OK, that works.

On the contrary, I'm flattered. Please do, and let me know how it goes.

Though be aware, this coming month I'm going to be working on a new draft of the game. The rules aren't going to change much (if at all), but I hope to improve explanations and organization, and provide more examples. So, you know... watch this space.

I might not even start it within the next month, since my finals are incoming at an alarming rate and I'd like to familiarize myself with the setting I'd like to place this in (Eberron).

Also, keep up the great work!
I've been looking for any tabletop system that would suit me for about a month and then I stumbled upon yours after seeing it under one of your posts. And I can say this is the most elegant and well-made system I've seen.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also, keep up the great work!
I've been looking for any tabletop system that would suit me for about a month and then I stumbled upon yours after seeing it under one of your posts. And I can say this is the most elegant and well-made system I've seen.

[Dunkoro]

I have some more questions:

1. Why would anybody pick a Skill or Knack over a Boost? The second one is practically in every way superior.

2. What happens if two NPCs fight against each other? (Let's say the party is guided by a GM controlled NPC and they were ambushed)
Who rolls and against what scores?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have some more questions:

1. Why would anybody pick a Skill or Knack over a Boost? The second one is practically in every way superior.

It's a fair point... I was already thinking that Boosts needed to be 2 points. Let's call that a final decision.

2. What happens if two NPCs fight against each other? (Let's say the party is guided by a GM controlled NPC and they were ambushed)
Who rolls and against what scores?

This is something I'm meaning to cover in the new draft... I've got a few ways to deal with it:

• Named characters > extras.
• If both NPCs are important enough to have "stat sheets" (ie, traits and endurance boxes), look at those. If one has traits that say he should win, he wins. If they look about equally matched, check off one box a turn for each of them.
• If an NPC is particularly important-- ie, he's going adventuring with the PCs-- give him a full set of abilities.

[Dunkoro]

It's a fair point... I was already thinking that Boosts needed to be 2 points. Let's call that a final decision.

Or maybe say that Boost have to apply to very specific areas instead. While one could have a skill in Acrobatics for 1 point, he might have a Boost in Tumbling for 1 point. Or give both options (Broad Boost for 2 points, very specific ones for 1)

This is something I'm meaning to cover in the new draft... I've got a few ways to deal with it:

• Named characters > extras.
• If both NPCs are important enough to have "stat sheets" (ie, traits and endurance boxes), look at those. If one has traits that say he should win, he wins. If they look about equally matched, check off one box a turn for each of them.
• If an NPC is particularly important-- ie, he's going adventuring with the PCs-- give him a full set of abilities.

Sure, that works.


Also, how would you treat Milestones in a Play-by-Post game? Consider 1 (2? 3?) pages as a single session?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also, how would you treat Milestones in a Play-by-Post game? Consider 1 (2? 3?) pages as a single session?

Oh, geez. I've never done PbP, so I've got no idea on that one.

[Dunkoro]

I still think you should give out an option of having 1-point boosts, when they would be applicable in more limited situations (Boost in Acrobatics costing 2, but Boost in Tumbling would only cost 1)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I still think you should give out an option of having 1-point boosts, when they would be applicable in more limited situations (Boost in Acrobatics costing 2, but Boost in Tumbling would only cost 1)

I added in rules for limited powers.

[Dunkoro]

Another concern I have is that having an advantage is "priced" similarily to being a level up and having a disadvantage while the latter is clearly superior.
How about instead of 2 Advantages=New Level there would be 2 Advantages=New Level at a Disadvantage?
That would make a following change:
Instead of
Level 0 at Disadvantage>Level 0>Level 0 at Advantage>Level 1
Level 0 at Disadvantage<Level 0<Level 1 at Disadvantage<Level 1
There would be
Level 0 at Disadvantage>Level 0>Level 0 at Advantage>Level 1 at Disadvantage>Level 1
Level 0 at Disadvantage<Level 0<Level 0 at Advantage<Level 1 at Disadvantage<Level 1
So that consistency will be improved as well.

Also, Any number of Aspects may be chosen, although the Director may assign a specific number. is written twice in Aspects' description.

[Dunkoro]

A bunch of new ideas and questions:

What do you propose a GM does, when he would normally make secret rolls, without conflicting the "players roll all the dice" rule?

What would you think of a new talent increasing amount of flourishes by 1 whenever you succeed?

A new variant introducing a deck of cards instead of dice.
Advantages of deck of cards:
Easier to acquire and replace.
Easier to read.
Does not require a large flat space.
Never "tilts".
One could introduce jokers as a kind of "critical hit" indicator.
Better probability spread (since dice are not perfect, they often prefer some results).

Advantages of the dice:
No need for reshuffling.
Propabilities do not change after previous rolls ("since there are already 3 10s and two 9s drawn, there's little chance I'll fail.").
More traditionally associated with RPGs.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sorry I've been absent-- I've actually been working on a new draft.

Another concern I have is that having an advantage is "priced" similarily to being a level up and having a disadvantage while the latter is clearly superior.

In the new version, pricing works like so:

• Skill or Knack: 1 point
• Boost: 2 points for one rote use (one of the bullet points under the Ability descriptions), or 3 points for the entire Ability
• Power: 1-3 points, depending on how broad/useful it is.
• Companion: 3 points if sentient, 1 point if not

Limited talents, talents with meaningful daily use restrictions, and equipment all provide 1-point discounts that can be stacked to a minimum of zero points. (Thus anti-personal weapons, being one-Level Boosts limited to damage and equipment, are free)

What do you propose a GM does, when he would normally make secret rolls, without conflicting the "players roll all the dice" rule?

I'm not a huge fan of secret rolls, but you can just make the check yourself behind your screen. You'll have to know your player's Ability, but you'd have to know that anyway.

What would you think of a new talent increasing amount of flourishes by 1 whenever you succeed?

Ehh... not so much. I mean, I don't think it'd be imbalanced or anything, but I don't think it adds anything, either. Skills and Boosts already add two ways to be better at things; we don't need a third option.

A new variant introducing a deck of cards instead of dice.

I can dig it... unfortunately, I'm bad at math, so I don't know if I could design it. I guess you could take out all the face cards and get a way to generate numbers between 1 and 10, but that ignores all the fun things you can do with a deck of cards...

[Dunkoro]

Sorry I've been absent-- I've actually been working on a new draft.


In the new version, pricing works like so:

• Skill or Knack: 1 point
• Boost: 2 points for one rote use (one of the bullet points under the Ability descriptions), or 3 points for the entire Ability
• Power: 1-3 points, depending on how broad/useful it is.
• Companion: 3 points if sentient, 1 point if not

Limited talents, talents with meaningful daily use restrictions, and equipment all provide 1-point discounts that can be stacked to a minimum of zero points. (Thus anti-personal weapons, being one-Level Boosts limited to damage and equipment, are free)

IMO that's much more better priced than the current draft. I like it.

I can dig it... unfortunately, I'm bad at math, so I don't know if I could design it. I guess you could take out all the face cards and get a way to generate numbers between 1 and 10, but that ignores all the fun things you can do with a deck of cards...

My idea was that one would simply leave in ace (one) through 10 plus jokers. And the jokers wouldn't change propability, as they'd force to draw an additional card.

And you still haven't adressed my concern, that (effectively) level n + advantage is the same effective "cost" as level (n+1) - disadvantage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

And you still haven't adressed my concern, that (effectively) level n + advantage is the same effective "cost" as level (n+1) - disadvantage.

I'm not sure I follow.

[Dunkoro]

I'm not sure I follow.

It's that both (being on a level n and having an advantage) and (being on a level n+1 and having a disadvantage) are exactly 1 disadvantage away from (being on level n), thus they are 'priced' similarly, while not being nowhere near each other's power.

EDIT: Also, a useful 2-point spell written on a scroll (1-use, equipment) is free. That should not happen.

EDIT: Also, why the table with scale in conflicts have "1 damage, + 1 damage per fumble on the defense check" when successful, can you have any fumbles then?

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's that both (being on a level n and having an advantage) and (being on a level n+1 and having a disadvantage) are exactly 1 disadvantage away from (being on level n), thus they are 'priced' similarly, while not being nowhere near each other's power.

Ehh... in the end, I don't think it's that big a deal. I've never seen an issue there when it comes to playtesting, and I think the theoretical-balance-improvement is outweighed by the less-intuitive-modifier-stacking.

EDIT: Also, a useful 2-point spell written on a scroll (1-use, equipment) is free. That should not happen.

Mmm. I would have said minimum of one, but some things should be free- basic weapons, cell phones, stuff like that. I can certainly include a note about Directors being careful to limit cost reducers, but... I dunno. Can you think of a better way to do it?

EDIT: Also, why the table with scale in conflicts have "1 damage, + 1 damage per fumble on the defense check" when successful, can you have any fumbles then?

The table is for the resistance check. You get a defense check to avoid getting hit, and a resistance check to avoid getting hurt.

[Dunkoro]

Ehh... in the end, I don't think it's that big a deal. I've never seen an issue there when it comes to playtesting, and I think the theoretical-balance-improvement is outweighed by the less-intuitive-modifier-stacking.

I'd say that my kind of stacking is more intuitive.

Mmm. I would have said minimum of one, but some things should be free- basic weapons, cell phones, stuff like that. I can certainly include a note about Directors being careful to limit cost reducers, but... I dunno. Can you think of a better way to do it?

It might be balanced with use of the Wealth variant. And the comment for Directors to beware should be there.

The table is for the resistance check. You get a defense check to avoid getting hit, and a resistance check to avoid getting hurt.

Oh, OK.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd say that my kind of stacking is more intuitive.

"Good circumstances" plus "good circumstances" = "bad circumstances?"

[Dunkoro]

"Good circumstances" plus "good circumstances" = "bad circumstances?"

Looking at it that way...

I prefer to look at it:
"Good Circumstances" + "Good Circumstances" = "Automatic Success"

But if your implementation has never posed a problem in play-testing, then it probably is OK enough

EDIT: As for the 'scroll problem':
You should probably write, that multiple abilities of the same type should count as one ability with the appropriate use limitation of all of them combined. Does that make any sense to you?

Also, you should probably clarify, inside the Wealth variant, whether items bought using Wealth should still be bought using points anyway

[Grod_The_Giant]

Mmm. I would have said minimum of one, but some things should be free- basic weapons, cell phones, stuff like that. I can certainly include a note about Directors being careful to limit cost reducers, but... I dunno. Can you think of a better way to do it?

Wait, I just figured this out. A special "Common" category that allows the price of a Trait to drop to zero.

[Dunkoro]

May I ask how is the work on the new version going?

[Grod_The_Giant]

May I ask how is the work on the new version going?

Not bad. I've gotten though most of the actual mechanics, although I'm still not sold on all of the "expanded rules" I've worked out. (Need some playtesting there, most likely). I'm working on the fluffier, advice-y bits now-- just finished the section on worldbuilding and started in on Directing-- with a few pre-made campaign settings waiting in the wings for when that's done. Unfortunately, classes start on Monday, so who knows how much that'll slow me down.

[Dunkoro]

Not bad. I've gotten though most of the actual mechanics, although I'm still not sold on all of the "expanded rules" I've worked out. (Need some playtesting there, most likely). I'm working on the fluffier, advice-y bits now-- just finished the section on worldbuilding and started in on Directing-- with a few pre-made campaign settings waiting in the wings for when that's done. Unfortunately, classes start on Monday, so who knows how much that'll slow me down.

Could you possibly share that draft? I'd like to start a campaign in STaRS shortly and I'd prefer the refined version probably. We could be your playtesters