Mage Blade website

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, Mike.. Been waiting for your response. ::smiles:: You've proven to be very astute in tearing systems apart and getting at the roots.

Thanks. I sorta consider it a responsibility of mine here as I am more interested in Sim stuff than most others here.

The way I'm doing it now, even during character creation the higher your stat the more expensive it is to raise. I've made it so that average stats for different racial attributes costs about the same to achieve (so the average orc will have about an 8 Body, whereas the average human will have a 5 Body, but they both spent the same amount of points to get there) but it's still quite costly to get up to max. I'm not sure how well it will work, but I think that it will encourage higher stats where applicable and lower stats where applicable as well, without forcing anyone into an archetype.

Erm, that's worse, actually. In fact that's exactly the sort of effect I'm talking about. Essentially, the chargen system makes it most cost effective to be average for the race (though I'm not sure how you handle under average). Sure folks will buy up from average. But, again, if I want a really high Body charater, what's the cost effective solution in your example? Be an orc. Thus more characters who hve high body will be orcs, thus reinforcing the archetypes. Essentially you still have a +3 Body for orcs, it's just hidden a little better.

What is really not right about such a system is the purpose for which the system exists. I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the purpose of the point based CharGen is to create characters of similar power levels for similar amounts of points. Otherwise why have a point system, right? Well, how does it make any sense that 8Body should cost less for one character than another? You can point to counterbalancing low stats, but what you'll find again is that players are really unconcerned with those stats for that character, and will certainly not buy them up. Or if they do buy them back to human average, you'll find that this cost to do so is less than the cost savings recieved in boosting the high stats.

In any case the point is that a particular stat is worth a particular amount from a game balance POV. An unused maxima or bonus is worth nothing in terms of power balancing (this is the problem with racial packages in Hero System, for example). Much easier, and more balanced is just to have suggested averages and ranges for races, but have the cost all be the same for everyone in order to get balance. And players can play to or against the stereotypes as they prefer, with no penalties for doing so.

Sorry for the rant, this is a long standing issue with me.

 'sides, Intelligence only plays into certain types of spells... It's Force that matters for power level, and no one has a penalty to that.

That's my point. If intelligence doesn't matter to me, then of course I'll take a race that has bonuses elsewhere where I feel they are more useful or interesting. Your players might not take advantage of this, and other players might not always. But, given that it makes no sense balance-wise, why have it?

As for the number of attributes, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. This is one point where I will be stubborn. I did it the way I did it for a reason, though one that is difficult to articulate. It comes down again to RL metaphysical concepts and beliefs.

OK. I'll just point out that RL metaphysics and good game design probably have a very low correlation. Or is the game a philosophical statement? If that's the case you'll be cutting your audience dramatically.

As for the open ended-low, I honestly hadn't thought about it. Do you think it would truly affect things very much? And if you were doing it, would you still attach an additional negative result to such a roll?

I thihnk that its not a bad idea, and it does have mnemonic symetry with the other end of your rolls, so it  adds no complexity (it just replaces the current rule of one, anyway). The idea is that if you are reduced to a -7 TR, you still have a chance to succeed, and even succeed big, theoretically. It's just long odds, and odds that are dependent on the current situation. As opposed to the current system where everyone at or below 1 TR has the same chance at only one possible outcome, which is a mediocre one.

Symetrical, intuitive, detail generating, simple, interesting.

It would depend on the players and the GM when it ended. The only stipulation for it would be that in a confrontation like that (purely social) that both participants would get an equal number of rolls. Alternately, it could be whoever accumulated a given number on their total success margin.

I like that idea. He who gets to 20 first wins or somethiong like that.

The problem is that well matched opponents could go on forever. You could make each roll a contest with the lower success margin subtracted from the higher, and that total added to the player's running total. This way, you can say that a given character "won the round", and the total will accumulate by how much he won it by. First character to some target total (determined before hand by the nature and likely length of the contest), wins. How well he won can be determined by looking at the difference in the ending scores. 18 to 20 would mean a close race. 6 to 20 would mean it was no contest.

 It depends entirely on the action you are attempting as to which attributes and skills will be used. As all actions fell within the realm of Academic Lore, that was the skill that was used. He attempted different techniques like audience appeal, snap responses, etc. each of which is in a different area, and would require the use of a different attribute.

I get that. The question is why did he use one stat in one case and another stat in another if one was higher than another. I can see a sim player doing this, but the mechanic encourages the repeated use of the same stat over and over. Perhaps you could have a rule that characters had to rotate stat use during contests to make them more interesting.

Or do you have another reward system or mechanic that would give a player incentive to use other than his highest stat?

Again, in my experience, they haven't done this.

And again, that doesn't mean that other groups won't. The incentive obviously exists. That your players ignore it is coincidental.

OTOH, the effect is minimal, so I don't have a really big problem with it. Certainly there are much worse ways you could have gone.

The pure mage in my first playtest group had to roll a 7 or better to get more than one action, and in one combat, he didn't. However, when it came to his turn, he turned the opposition to cinders (and scattered metal rings, from the chainmail...) In addition for those who choose a magical School which enhances their combat prowess, rather than allowing them to cast fireballs and such, there are spells which enhance initiative.

We're looking at "all else being equal". Look at two fighters who are otherwise identical. One has a higher fire total and the other has something else to balance point wise. Which one has the advantage. I'm betting that it's the guy with the high Fire total, because in a system this lethal, extra attacks and defenses are huge.

 The section bolded... Are you just pointing it out, or are you mentioning it as a flaw to the system? In my experience, faster people *do* get to attack first and more often. Maybe my system overexaggerates this, but I set it up with an idea of the elite warrior being able to dive into a melee with 2 or 3 other lesser-trained warriors and managing to hold his own, and even turn the tide and stomp a mudhole in their... yeah.

I'd ask what experience, but I'll take it on faith. From what I know of combat, throwing more attacks is not an advantage necessarily. Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that fights are some back and forth exchange of blows, which is totally untrue. This is an artifact of wargaming scaled down to a personal combat level. A conveient abstraction that has nothing at all to do with reality.

If you insist on keeping that abstraction (and I can point to many games which use more realistic abstractions) then I suggest you consider the balance. I think that you'll find that, like many players who found that they could increase their character's combat efficiency in Hero System by jacking up their speed, your players will jack up their speed. Consider that in GURPS it costs 100 CP (the cost of an average fantasy character) to get one extra action per combat round. That balances more closely ina system that has a lethality similar to yours.

Remember that extra atacks in D&D make sense only because of the silly hit point system.

Well, sure! Damage is a pretty straightforward thing, isn't it? Someone shoots you, it's going to make a hole. Someone hits you with a sword, it's going to make a gash. Admittedly, there are near-misses, and fleshwounds... But most of the time, if the attack is a "success" the damage is going to be pretty standard.

Huh? Look up a book on emergency room gun shot wounds or stabbings. The bewildering variety of types of damages is so large that an RPG can hardly hope to emulate them. Any weapon can do any amount of damage ranging from scratches (which you admit occur) to being instantly fatal, and everywhere in between. Certainly we have to abstract this, but to say that one person assaulting another with a given weapon can only do an amount of damage that will result in the same level of impairment seems, well, not realistic. And if you're going for cinematic, that's even worse. Weapons do all manner of unrealistic things to people there which would need to be enumerated.

I most wholeheartedly disagree.

And though I would like to streamline the critical system, I don't want to do away with it entirely. There are other effects than simply more damage or insta-kill that I like.

Yes, those effects are interesting and I wouldn't hav you be rid of them. However there are other simple ways to get those effects.

Magic: There will be several spell-lists. They're integral to the individual Schools. I'd originally intended to make it more flexible, but I couldn't see how to do it, so I created the Schools. As it currently stands, I prefer the Schools, because it helps the setting, and to give structure to the magic system.

Cool. The magic system should support the setting. How do you attempt to balance the schools and individual spells? Is it just a zen thing like most do, or do you have a system?

Um.. Y'know I didn't think about that.

They never do...

Probably the simplest way would be to say midnight, or even to say that a character must meditate to draw in Mana, and the "refresh rate" is used as a limit to how much may be drawn into yourself in a given period of time.

Again, what makes sense withthe system and cosmology. Where is mana from? If its from the rotation of the planet, or from the moon or something, then a certain time of day makes sense. If its internal, then say the refresh rate is what the character gets with eight hours of meditation (allowed usually only once a day). I like that last sort of limitation, because it makes the player think twice before spending mana. I can get it back, but only after days of meditation. As opposed to just taking time.

There are lots of other options, as well.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, as well as advice.

You're welcome. I look forward to seeing the rest.

Mike

[Valamir]

Again, what makes sense withthe system and cosmology. Where is mana from? If its from the rotation of the planet, or from the moon or something, then a certain time of day makes sense. If its internal, then say the refresh rate is what the character gets with eight hours of meditation (allowed usually only once a day).  

Wolfen, I just wanted to pull this out of Mikes post for added emphasis.  This, IMO, is the single most important thing you can do to keep your game from being just another generic bad guy bashing fantasy fest.

I think you are spending too much time worrying about mechanics and not enough time worrying about setting.  Once you have a basic set of game mechanics...a rough resolution system, you should set the mechanics aside and delve full bore into the reality of your setting.  THEN return to your mechanics and fill in the details so that the results are based on your setting.

This is identical to what designers do who are designing realistic games.  They design mechanics that reflect reality.  You are not dealing with the real world, you are dealing with a fantasy world.  That means you have to do one extra step.  Before designing mechanics to reflect reality, you have to define the reality.

[an aside:  alot of folks will assume that designing fantasy is easier because it isn't real.  Thats not true.  Designing crappy fantasy is easier.  Designing good fantasy is much much much much harder]

Above, Mike asks what mana is and how it works in your world.  I'm going to be a little blunt here, but please understand I mean this constructively.  If you don't already know the answer to that, you have no business whatsoever even *thinking* about game mechanics related to it.  

First define what mana is and how it works and where it comes from, etc.  THEN define mechanics that support that reality.  If you do that, the mechanics almost start to write themselves.

[Lance D. Allen]

::snarls:: I had this post almost entirely written, then I got booted and lost it. So, let's start from the top, shall we?

I think you are spending too much time worrying about mechanics and not enough time worrying about setting. Once you have a basic set of game mechanics...a rough resolution system, you should set the mechanics aside and delve full bore into the reality of your setting. THEN return to your mechanics and fill in the details so that the results are based on your setting.

 But I'm not, though. I've thought extensively about the setting, I'm just not bringing it to the Forge boards. I don't really feel I need help on it. (and frankly, I'm not really wishing to hear it called derivative of D&D, a game which I've played only seldom, or of Tolkien, of who's writings I've only read the hobbit. If it manages to be derivative anyhow, oh well, I'll cope. Ahem. Irritation talking, excuse me.) What I would like help on is the system, because that is the most technical part of the game, and unlike setting, a less than optimal system can slow down game play. I do have the answers to the questions, rest assured. ::smiles::

In any case the point is that a particular stat is worth a particular amount from a game balance POV. An unused maxima or bonus is worth nothing in terms of power balancing (this is the problem with racial packages in Hero System, for example). Much easier, and more balanced is just to have suggested averages and ranges for races, but have the cost all be the same for everyone in order to get balance. And players can play to or against the stereotypes as they prefer, with no penalties for doing so.

 But.. Orcs are stronger than humans, dwarves are too, as are Drakken.. Elves are a bit quicker, and more socially adept.. So shouldn't the system reflect this? I understand that some will take advantage of this, but isn't it worth it to have the system encourage the strengths and weaknesses of differing races?

I thihnk that its not a bad idea, and it does have mnemonic symetry with the other end of your rolls, so it adds no complexity (it just replaces the current rule of one, anyway). The idea is that if you are reduced to a -7 TR, you still have a chance to succeed, and even succeed big, theoretically. It's just long odds, and odds that are dependent on the current situation. As opposed to the current system where everyone at or below 1 TR has the same chance at only one possible outcome, which is a mediocre one.

Symetrical, intuitive, detail generating, simple, interesting.

 Fair enough. So here's the question... If the TR is modified to -7, the character will have to roll a 1 to even have a chance.. But then do they have to roll below 7? Or do they have to roll below 13 (20-7)? Or would it even be their normal TR -7? Or, alternately, on the negative side of the spectrum, will they have to roll *higher* than 7 (effectively lower, as it's negatives..)? Which way would you choose?

I like that idea. He who gets to 20 first wins or somethiong like that.

The problem is that well matched opponents could go on forever.

 Well, two well-matched opponents *could* go on forever, if they were stubborn enough. ::grins:: But to prevent that, I'd say that either an IC interruption, or the GM saying something along the lines of "Okay, so you two continue long into the night... but you still only get 2 more rolls apiece to settle it, so we can continue with the game."

I get that. The question is why did he use one stat in one case and another stat in another if one was higher than another. I can see a sim player doing this, but the mechanic encourages the repeated use of the same stat over and over. Perhaps you could have a rule that characters had to rotate stat use during contests to make them more interesting.

Or do you have another reward system or mechanic that would give a player incentive to use other than his highest stat?

 Mostly it was used as an example of how different attributes can be used in combination with the same skill, really. However, circumstances could force a certain type of roll (as when Liam rolled Wits+Academic Lore to react to a surprising tactic by his opponent). Other than that, I'd imagine players would stick to their strengths, the same way a person would. When I debate, I generally attempt to address individual points, because that's where my strengths lie.
 There's not really any reward to using other attributes, other than the GM might award a Char Point for good roleplaying in the scene. Do you think there should be?

We're looking at "all else being equal". Look at two fighters who are otherwise identical. One has a higher fire total and the other has something else to balance point wise. Which one has the advantage. I'm betting that it's the guy with the high Fire total, because in a system this lethal, extra attacks and defenses are huge.

 If the second fighter did not have the balancing points in another area which affected combat, all would not be equal. The first would be the superior fighter, and would have a decided advantage. If on the other hand the other points went into, say, Earth attributes, the second fighter would make up for his lack of initiative (assuming the dice rolls were also equal) by being able to deal more damage in his fewer attacks, and being able to resist the effects of damage better. On the other hand, magic does a lot to equalize. In the example mentioned before, about the pure mage.. If he'd have met in face-to-face combat, he'd have been butchered, both because he was slow, and because he wasn't combatively effective. However, as he was able to hang back out of physical combat, he did more damage than anyone else combined.
 Also, I forgot another aspect.. It is possible to discard active actions for reactive actions. As I was advised to post only the basics, I didn't include the rules for Concentrated Defense. Allow me to do so here.

~Concentrated Defense: It is possible to use Active Actions as Reactive Actions. If you opt to do this, you lose an Active Action, but gain a Reactive Action, which is used like a standard Reactive Action.

 This does indeed give another advantage to faster characters, but it also allows survivability to slower characters.

I'd ask what experience, but I'll take it on faith. From what I know of combat, throwing more attacks is not an advantage necessarily. Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that fights are some back and forth exchange of blows, which is totally untrue. This is an artifact of wargaming scaled down to a personal combat level. A conveient abstraction that has nothing at all to do with reality.

 Basic Training admittedly doesn't include a lot of hand-to-hand for Tankers, but it does include some, where I picked up some of this. Prior to my military experience, I was involved with the SCA (mostly as an observer) and I realized that the faster fighters were usually much more likely to win, in either a melee or a duel. I once observed a dual which happened almost exactly like the one described in the example with Liam and LiamClone. The first fighter approached the second, and struck, was blocked by the shield, then came up under the shield and struck for the kill. The second fighter never got a chance to attack before he was dead. Granted, the first fighter was a florentine fighter, and quite good at it (he was one of the two remaining combatants at the end of the day, where they simply flipped a coin, because it was too hot {I live in Arizona} to continue).

Huh? Look up a book on emergency room gun shot wounds or stabbings. The bewildering variety of types of damages is so large that an RPG can hardly hope to emulate them. Any weapon can do any amount of damage ranging from scratches (which you admit occur) to being instantly fatal, and everywhere in between. Certainly we have to abstract this, but to say that one person assaulting another with a given weapon can only do an amount of damage that will result in the same level of impairment seems, well, not realistic. And if you're going for cinematic, that's even worse. Weapons do all manner of unrealistic things to people there which would need to be enumerated.

I most wholeheartedly disagree.

 Okay, bad argument. I am actually theoretically familiar with the spectrum of gunshot wounds, as I was trained as a Combat Lifesaver. I know immediate and secondary first-aid for various types of combat injuries, which mostly take the form of gunshot and shrapnel wounds, as well as a few other things (such as shock, dehydration, etc.) I honestly just wanted to keep damage simple. Rather than adding yet another roll, I decided to make damage static dependent on weapon strength and (for melee) wielder's strength, and damage reduction in the form of armor also static. It's simpler.. But I'll grant that it's perhaps too simple. That was in part why I added the critical hit rules, to make it possible to be able to do extreme amounts of damage, or have some other effect, dependent on how well you hit. I'm honestly not sure I like the idea of adding your Success Margin to the damage, as you suggested in a previous post. Perhaps an additional damage bonus for every 5 points of success margin would do?

Yes, those effects {critical effects} are interesting and I wouldn't hav you be rid of them. However there are other simple ways to get those effects.

 So I've been seeking. How would I simplify it and still have the chance for those effects? How much simpler can it get from 1 additional roll and a chart check?

Cool. The magic system should support the setting. How do you attempt to balance the schools and individual spells? Is it just a zen thing like most do, or do you have a system?

 All spells within the game, regardless of the School they come from are rated with a Force level, which depends on how many Force points are required to cast it. Frex, Lightning is a variable force spell. It's learned as a Force 2 spell, but can be cast at Force 4, 6, 8 and 10. It requires, at base level 1 Force channeled to Fire, 1 Force channeled to Air. Each successive level requires another to each. Because each School uses the Force rating system, and the maximum is 10 (11 for some purely elven Schools, if any are ever created..) the spells are all to be fairly balanced. Whether this is actually so will have to be discovered in playtesting.

Again, what makes sense withthe system and cosmology. Where is mana from? If its from the rotation of the planet, or from the moon or something, then a certain time of day makes sense. If its internal, then say the refresh rate is what the character gets with eight hours of meditation (allowed usually only once a day). I like that last sort of limitation, because it makes the player think twice before spending mana. I can get it back, but only after days of meditation. As opposed to just taking time.

There are lots of other options, as well.

 Okay, here's where I hit you with some setting stuff.. Mana, by it's very concept, is natural energy. Specifically in Mage Blade, mana is taken from the natural world around you, and held within you until expended. It "comes" from the natural processes of the world.. water flowing, the sun shining, the movement of the earth and the air, the inhalations and exhalations of living things, their births, lives and deaths. The person absorbs absorbs this pure energy into themselves. Later on (perhaps in a magic supplement) I'll introduce the idea of ley lines and the idea of your location mattering in how much mana you can absorb (such as Water Primes having an affinity to watery locations, etc.) but for now, your Mana dictates a set amount you can absorb in a given time period. So either way it could be meditation which allows you to absorb it, or by simply living and breathing. I suppose it comes down to whether or not it's a conscious action, or not. That I have yet to decide. What say you?

 Well, that's it for now. Ask me some more questions, pick apart my arguments, whatever. I look forward to further analysis of my game. [/b]

[Mike Holmes]

... I've thought extensively about the setting, I'm just not bringing it to the Forge boards. I don't really feel I need help on it. (and frankly, I'm not really wishing to hear it called derivative of D&D, a game which I've played only seldom, or of Tolkien, of who's writings I've only read the hobbit. If it manages to be derivative anyhow, oh well, I'll cope. Ahem. Irritation talking, excuse me.)

Well, (just to be irritating ;-) ) your setting is already obviously derivative of Tolkien and D&D. If for no other reason than it has orcs. No geting around it. OTOH, I personally don't mind derivative. In my mind everything is derivative to an extent. There are advantages to derivative. The only disadvantage is that the more derivative one is, the less advantage in terms of originality. Its a spectrum as I see it, and where you fall on that spectrum is a choice.

But I digress, my apologies; this is supposed to be about your system.

But.. Orcs are stronger than humans, dwarves are too, as are Drakken.. Elves are a bit quicker, and more socially adept.. So shouldn't the system reflect this? I understand that some will take advantage of this, but isn't it worth it to have the system encourage the strengths and weaknesses of differing races?

Why, because other systems make the same mistake? Give me a reason why it makes sense to encourage the strengths and weaknesses of a given race. I gave you a reason why it's a bad idea. It stifles creativity. Why is it a good idea?

I'm not saying that players should ignore that orcs are stronger. An orc with a body of seven is under-average for an orc. But still tougher (bigger?) than an average human by quite a bit. That is the important fact. But a seven should cost as much for an orc as it does for a human.

If you really want something to give players an idea of typical members of species, use templates. Work out an entire character archtype as a template, and cost it out. Then all the player has to do is select one and tailor to taste. This should not replace the standard method of creation, as it would then also likely cause a decrease in creativity. But in combination, you get the best of both worlds. Another advantage of templates is that i a layer wants a character quick, they can just select one and do as little tailoring as they like and, voila, they are on their way. Really advanced versions of this method have little packages worked out before hand to make the gross parts of tailoring easy.

Fair enough. So here's the question... If the TR is modified to -7, the character will have to roll a 1 to even have a chance.. But then do they have to roll below 7? Or do they have to roll below 13 (20-7)? Or would it even be their normal TR -7? Or, alternately, on the negative side of the spectrum, will they have to roll *higher* than 7 (effectively lower, as it's negatives..)? Which way would you choose?

It's really very simple, and identical symetrically to the high roll. All other mechanics are the same. So, if you roll a one, roll another die and subtract fom one (as opposed to addingto twenty). If the roll is less than the TR, then it's a success. Otherwise its a failure. You calculate Success Margin as always by subtracting the roll from the TR.

EX. Bob has a TR of -7. But it's his lucky day. He rolls a one on his first roll. He then rolls again and gets a 10. 1-10= -9. -9 is less than -7 so Bob succeeds. His margin of success is -7 - (-9) = 2. Not bad for a really difficult task.

Well, two well-matched opponents *could* go on forever, if they were stubborn enough. ::grins:: But to prevent that, I'd say that either an IC interruption, or the GM saying something along the lines of "Okay, so you two continue long into the night... but you still only get 2 more rolls apiece to settle it, so we can continue with the game."

See, now there's a cool mechanic to include. Continuing attempts get longer and longer until the player decides that it's just not worthwhile anymore. I'd encode that, if I were you.

Mostly it was used as an example of how different attributes can be used in combination with the same skill, really.

OK. I thought that might be it. Just wanted to be certain. If you do an example in the text, make sure that it indicates that the player is rolling aganist stats chosen by the GM.

There's not really any reward to using other attributes, other than the GM might award a Char Point for good roleplaying in the scene. Do you think there should be?

Could be interesting. Especially with all of the stats you have. A mechanic that forces them all to get used would go a long way in making them all usefull. Otherwise I think that you'll just see manysit dormant because players did not emphasize them. OTOH, it works fine without.

If the second fighter did not have the balancing points in another area which affected combat, all would not be equal.

I did not propose otherwise. I specifically said "and the other character has something to balance the points."

If on the other hand the other points went into, say, Earth attributes, the second fighter would make up for his lack of initiative (assuming the dice rolls were also equal) by being able to deal more damage in his fewer attacks, and being able to resist the effects of damage better.

Yes, I get that. But does it balance? Do three points in Earth really make up for three points in Fire? In my experience working with systems like this they do not even come close.

Lets take a closer look. Earth stuff helps you do more damage and take damage better. What do fire stats do. They make you go earlier, go more often and hit more often. What good is your earth stat making you do more damage if you don't hit? None. So the usability of the damage stat is only important in relation to the fire stats which make them more impoortant.

How important are these things individually? Lets see, in a lethal system, going first is the most important thing, statistically. In your RL combat example, the guy who won was the first to strike, right? You are arguing in my favor. Yes, this makes fire stats more important. Especially when one of the possible effects of a hit is to cause the opponent to lose his actions (stun). You see this big in Rolemaster (a game that I've played a colossal amount of) with its crit charts. The guy who goes first has such a decided advantage that it's unbalancing. One-on-one, players will come in swinging like a berserker paying no attention to defense, because they know that a good blow will make defense unneccessary. Your system will encourage going first.

Having more attacks is second most important. Which is more effective, having 3 attacks which can do 12 damage and are more likely to hit, or 2 attacks that do 18 damage and are less likely to hit? The three attacks are better for a bunch of reasons. The expected value of the damage is higher for three attacks, because they are more likely to get through. The adventage of being able to take more damage is ablative and single use. The character with 2 attacks can only defend actively twice leaving one attack even more likely to hit. More atacks means that losing attacks isn't as bad a thing. Armor can skew this a bit, but two can play that game.

I assume that the character with the higher fire stats can move further? Which means that if combat is going against the high Fire charracter, he can run away from the high Earth character. While the reverse is not true.

There are unknown parts of your system that could make this analysis inaccurate. But I doubt it. It's just a common mistake in balancing designs. Hero system has this problem, and so does yours right now.

In your RL example of the guy with the two swords, first, I'm betting that he was pretty skilled. Skill in combat is what gives you the "initiative" not just raw speed. I'm not saying that speed is unimportant, however, but rather that speed is so important that nobody really has a huge difference in advantage in real life. Moreso, allowing speed that does give such advantage without making it cost more is unbalancing.

At the very least I'd separate the advantages of fire amongst the three stats. Make initiative only based off of one, for example. Then the fast guy has to trade off. Better would be to just disallow one attacker having more attacks than another. These attacks are abstracted, and first attack will have a huge advantage already. For really realistic and simpler combat, just chuck initiative (a wargaming relic) altogether, and make combat a contested roll (based in part off speed). That's a whole nother essay.

On the other hand, magic does a lot to equalize. In the example mentioned before, about the pure mage.. If he'd have met in face-to-face combat, he'd have been butchered, both because he was slow, and because he wasn't combatively effective. However, as he was able to hang back out of physical combat, he did more damage than anyone else combined.

I believe you. My point was only that amongst warriors your system would promote fast over strong. I'll bet the fast mage is more lethal than the slow one as well.

~Concentrated Defense: It is possible to use Active Actions as Reactive Actions. If you opt to do this, you lose an Active Action, but gain a Reactive Action, which is used like a standard Reactive Action.

This does indeed give another advantage to faster characters, but it also allows survivability to slower characters.

You're just making it worse. This is called a loser strategy in game theory. The only thing a defense can do is make my offense weaker. It cannot make yours stronger. This means that I am more certain to win eventually, though it may take longer (again all else being the same). The only case where this is not true is where I have to delay so that friends can help. So it's not bad game design to include it (most games have it in some form). But it will not help the strong fighter beat the weak fighter. In fact, it will make the strong fighter look like a coward. See Deprotagonization, and The WIff syndrome.

Also, don't let this sort of rule get out of hand. If you extend it and allow defenses to be traded for offenses, for example, you further exacerbate the problem, as well as creating new ones.

Basic Training admittedly doesn't include a lot of hand-to-hand for Tankers, but it does include some, where I picked up some of this. Prior to my military experience, I was involved with the SCA

Looks like we have about equal "experience" then. OTOH, you should also consider that potentially what you are trying to simulate is not real life, but a cinematic or literate version of it. Would you rather have a real life combat in your game of fights like the ones from LotR, book or movie. There is a diference in how to produce this mechanically, and not just jacking up characters.

Okay, bad argument. I am actually theoretically familiar with the spectrum of gunshot wounds, as I was trained as a Combat Lifesaver.

I have a really funny story about Combat Lifesaver training. If you want to hear it, ask via PM.

I honestly just wanted to keep damage simple.

Simple is good, but simple and interesting is better. I'm not suggesting that you need more rolls.

[/quote]... I'll grant that it's perhaps too simple. That was in part why I added the critical hit rules, to make it possible to be able to do extreme amounts of damage, or have some other effect, dependent on how well you hit. I'm honestly not sure I like the idea of adding your Success Margin to the damage, as you suggested in a previous post. Perhaps an additional damage bonus for every 5 points of success margin would do?
[/quote]
Well, as you said, the crits already take care of more damage. What seems to be missing is the potential to do less. More below.

So I've been seeking. How would I simplify it and still have the chance for those effects? How much simpler can it get from 1 additional roll and a chart check?

Use that one chart check to do both damage adjustment and crit effects. Which it already does. Just extend it down a bit. Same complexity, more potential results. It goes from being the "Crit" table to being the "Combat Effect" table.

Or any of a jillion other ways that other games handle it. Or something original if you're feeling really creative.

All spells within the game, regardless of the School they come from are rated with a Force level, which depends on how many Force points are required to cast it. Frex, Lightning is a variable force spell. It's learned as a Force 2 spell, but can be cast at Force 4, 6, 8 and 10. It requires, at base level 1 Force channeled to Fire, 1 Force channeled to Air. Each successive level requires another to each. Because each School uses the Force rating system, and the maximum is 10 (11 for some purely elven Schools, if any are ever created..) the spells are all to be fairly balanced.

I get all this. Circular reasoning, tho. The spells are balanced because they are rated by a balance figure. How do you determine the balance figure. From what I see, I will assume it is the zen method, especially considering:

Whether this is actually so will have to be discovered in playtesting.

Which is fine, just laborious. Could be fun labor, tho.

Okay, here's where I hit you with some setting stuff.. Mana, by it's very concept, is natural energy... So either way it could be meditation which allows you to absorb it, or by simply living and breathing. I suppose it comes down to whether or not it's a conscious action, or not. That I have yet to decide. What say you?

Sounds pretty cool (if standard). I'd do some interesting combination like allow mana to seep back in at a very slow rate, or come back faster with meditaion. Perhaps after casting, a character gets back a mana every 60/(Recovery stat) hours thereafter until full. Meditation of one sixth this figure would get back a point. This would give a range of from 6 to 60 hours for seep, and 1 to 10 hours with meditation.

But that's just off the top. There might be more or different ways that make sense with your setting. These are pretty standard. For instance, perhaps you can only get mana back at certain places. Or there is a rate shift for the places you are in. Do you have gods? Do priests have powers? For these I like recovering with sacrifices only.

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, (just to be irritating ;-) ) your setting is already obviously derivative of Tolkien and D&D. If for no other reason than it has orcs. No geting around it.

Orcs Shmorcs. ::grumbles:: So I happen to like biggie humanoids.. Doesn't make 'em the same as D&D orcs.. I would have brought over the Otrath (felinoid race I created for Star Wars) but I didn't want to make it an anthro game. (please don't respond to this. It's mostly in jest)

...alot of stuff about races and attribute averages... (sorry, didn't feel like quoting all three paragraphs)

 Okay.. I'm going to try this one more time, but if we still don't see eye to eye, I'm just gonna drop it.. A weak orc is still stronger than a weak human. A strong orc will always be stronger than a strong human. A 1-yo baby orc will be stronger than a 1-yo baby human. The "reality" of the game supports this, so shouldn't the system (which attempts to mimic physics) also support this? A maxed out orc costs x points, and a maxed out human costs x points. Why would an orc who worked just as hard as a human to put himself at peak potential have to pay more? (actually, they do have to pay a tiny bit more, but it's a pittance) I honestly don't see how people making strong, none-too-bright  orcs is unbalancing, or stifling creativity.
 As for templates, I intend to use them, both to give people an idea of what types of characters can be made, and also to be used as quick-start characters for those who don't want to take the time to create a character from scratch.

It's really very simple, and identical symetrically to the high roll. All other mechanics are the same. So, if you roll a one, roll another die and subtract fom one (as opposed to addingto twenty). If the roll is less than the TR, then it's a success. Otherwise its a failure. You calculate Success Margin as always by subtracting the roll from the TR.

EX. Bob has a TR of -7. But it's his lucky day. He rolls a one on his first roll. He then rolls again and gets a 10. 1-10= -9. -9 is less than -7 so Bob succeeds. His margin of success is -7 - (-9) = 2. Not bad for a really difficult task.

 Okay, I can do this... although the idea of a marginal success (where somethin' bad happens, even though you succeeded) is an idea I'm somewhat reluctant to let go of. Hell wi' it though. It's gone.

See, now there's a cool mechanic to include. Continuing attempts get longer and longer until the player decides that it's just not worthwhile anymore. I'd encode that, if I were you.

 Actually, I'd rather not encode it, so much as leave it open as an option. The group might actually be rather intent on the outcome, in that case, the two participants should be free to continue rolling until a decisive victory is reached. If, however, it's nothing particularly important, the GM can just state that that PC (or those PCs) can continue on for the rest of whatever "downtime" the party has available, while he switches his focus to another PC interaction, or simply fast-forwards to "the next morning" so the group can continue their adventure.

OK. I thought that might be it. Just wanted to be certain. If you do an example in the text, make sure that it indicates that the player is rolling aganist stats chosen by the GM.

 I can do that too.. though there might be circumstantial reasons for a player to change tactics on their own. Perhaps (as in the debate example) when the audience formed, the player asks the GM if he could get a bonus to his tests if he successfully convinced the audience of the validity of his points. This wasn't portrayed in the example, but it could happen during actual play.

Could be interesting. Especially with all of the stats you have. A mechanic that forces them all to get used would go a long way in making them all usefull. Otherwise I think that you'll just see manysit dormant because players did not emphasize them. OTOH, it works fine without.

 I think I'll not do it for the time being, but keep it in mind during playtesting. If I do indeed see a trend of certain attributes going unused, I'll consider adding a mechanic to encourage use of varying attributes.

 Do Earth and Fire attributes balance? I think so, for the most part. You pointed out that one could be stunned as an effect of a hit, but a good Body attribute could prevent this, especially considering the added chance with the modification of the Rule of One you proposed above, and I chose to accept.
 And I really do believe that, in RL, a first attack gives the advantage. If I manage to hit you with my sword prior to you getting a chance to hit me, I'm going to have a decisive advantage.

Having more attacks is second most important. Which is more effective, having 3 attacks which can do 12 damage and are more likely to hit, or 2 attacks that do 18 damage and are less likely to hit? The three attacks are better for a bunch of reasons.

 Actually, if the defender is wearing decent armor, the 2 hits at 18 would be more effective. Frex: if the damage reduction of the armor was 10, then the 3 hits of 12 dmg would do a total of 6, whereas the two hits of 18 would do a total of 16. If the damage reduction were 5, the totals would be 21 and 26. Very few pieces of armor go below 5 damage reduction.
 But okay, I'm open to ideas. How does this sound...

    Roll Init: 31 and 25, let's say. Count up Active and Reactive Actions, and determine order of precedence... In this case, the former gets 4 Active and Reactive Actions, the latter gets 3 of each. The former goes before the latter.
    First turn: The former takes an active action to attack, the latter takes a reactive action to defend. Then the latter takes an active action to attack, and the former takes a reactive action to defend.
    Second turn: The former attacks again (his second active action) and the latter defends again. Then the latter takes his second active action, prompting the former to take his second reactive action.
    Third turn: The former takes his third active action, the latter takes his third (and last) reactive action. The latter then takes his last active action, and the former takes his third reactive action.
    Fourth turn: The former takes his 4th and last active action, which the latter cannot take a reactive action to defend against. End of Round.

 The advantage to this is that the former, while still going first, doesn't get multiple attacks before the latter gets one. Any excess attacks are taken at the end of the combat round, once the other(s) have expended all of their active actions. It didn't make a great deal of difference in the above example, but it would have made a considerable difference in the example of Liam and LiamClone.

In your RL example of the guy with the two swords, first, I'm betting that he was pretty skilled. Skill in combat is what gives you the "initiative" not just raw speed. I'm not saying that speed is unimportant, however, but rather that speed is so important that nobody really has a huge difference in advantage in real life. Moreso, allowing speed that does give such advantage without making it cost more is unbalancing.

 Agility is the only Fire attribute which effects speed. Dexterity is a measure of raw, untrained skill, whereas Wits is a measure of ability to think and react quickly. These three things all have an effect on your combat prowess, which is why I decided that they would all effect initiative. So agility is your overall speed, dexterity is your ability to move and attack effectively, and wits is your ability to think quickly and change strategies on the fly. Does this change anything?

I believe you. My point was only that amongst warriors your system would promote fast over strong. I'll bet the fast mage is more lethal than the slow one as well.

Well, consider the idea that very few warriors will be "purely" warriors. The game is based on the idea that almost everyone is a mage of some sort, so while the faster mage might have an advantage in one-on-one combat, the more powerful, skilled mage is going to have an advantage in any and all areas.

You're just making it worse. This is called a loser strategy in game theory. The only thing a defense can do is make my offense weaker. It cannot make yours stronger. This means that I am more certain to win eventually, though it may take longer (again all else being the same). The only case where this is not true is where I have to delay so that friends can help. So it's not bad game design to include it (most games have it in some form). But it will not help the strong fighter beat the weak fighter. In fact, it will make the strong fighter look like a coward. See Deprotagonization, and The WIff syndrome.

 Strategic situations where the Concentrated Defense rule would be used would be if you roll low on initiative, and you want to push the combat into the next combat round, where you'll get a new chance at initiative. Survival is the best way to strengthen offense, after all. Also, kicking defense in against a faster opponent will allow you a chance to use at least one of your attacks, in most cases. It could even, as you said yourself, be used to delay whilst friends come to join you in the fray. Example: the warrior leaps into battle, allowing his friends time to cast spells, or join him, using Concentrated Defense to avoid the attacks of the multiple foes.

Also, don't let this sort of rule get out of hand. If you extend it and allow defenses to be traded for offenses, for example, you further exacerbate the problem, as well as creating new ones.

 Heh.. No, wouldn't do that. I do have a system in place which allows trading of defenses to enhance attacks, but not to gain more.

Looks like we have about equal "experience" then. OTOH, you should also consider that potentially what you are trying to simulate is not real life, but a cinematic or literate version of it. Would you rather have a real life combat in your game of fights like the ones from LotR, book or movie. There is a diference in how to produce this mechanically, and not just jacking up characters.

 Do I have to choose? I've seen some extraordinary SCA fighters take on multiple opponents in a way very reminiscent of the battle scenes of LotR (the movie, as I've yet to read the books). I suppose that combatants like that are fairly rare, though, in modern reality. I'd like to think that hobbyists (SCA fighters) can be used to illustrate the possibility of people who once (back in the day) did it for real.

Well, as you said, the crits already take care of more damage. What seems to be missing is the potential to do less. More below.

Use that one chart check to do both damage adjustment and crit effects. Which it already does. Just extend it down a bit. Same complexity, more potential results. It goes from being the "Crit" table to being the "Combat Effect" table.

Or any of a jillion other ways that other games handle it. Or something original if you're feeling really creative.

 Okay... I see where you're going with this.. but how would I do it? I suppose I'm asking not for advice in this particular question, but an actual example of how you would go about altering the Crit Chart to become a Combat Effect Chart.

The spells are balanced because they are rated by a balance figure. How do you determine the balance figure. From what I see, I will assume it is the zen method

 I suppose.. though honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "zen". As I create the spell lists, I put spells where I think they ought to go, according to power level. If that's "Zen" then I suppose that's what I did.

Sounds pretty cool (if standard). I'd do some interesting combination like allow mana to seep back in at a very slow rate, or come back faster with meditaion. Perhaps after casting, a character gets back a mana every 60/(Recovery stat) hours thereafter until full. Meditation of one sixth this figure would get back a point. This would give a range of from 6 to 60 hours for seep, and 1 to 10 hours with meditation.

But that's just off the top. There might be more or different ways that make sense with your setting. These are pretty standard. For instance, perhaps you can only get mana back at certain places. Or there is a rate shift for the places you are in. Do you have gods? Do priests have powers? For these I like recovering with sacrifices only.

 Hmm. Well, at current the "seep" rate is 1 per day for every two points of your Mana attribute, thereby creating a range of 1 (for Mana of 1 or 2) to 5 (for Mana of 9 or 10) per day. I didn't do it because it made the most sense, only because I needed a rate. Basically I patched a hole, until I could find a better fix for it.
 Still though, a range of 1 point every 6-60 hours is a little too much, I think. That would be a range of 1 point every 2.5 days to 4 points per day. I think I'll play around with the idea, but I don't think I'll use your exact numbers.
 As for gods.. No. There are Avatars, which is the closest thing to gods the setting has. They're physical/spiritual manifestations of concepts or energy, of immense power, but not godlike. They can be rivaled by particularly learned individuals with enough cumulated power, though such a rivalry would severely drain the mortal. There are some instances of worship, but they're not gods in the most common sense of the word.
 I could see debate about this topic once I release the setting information, but the authoritarian answer is "No, they are not gods".

[Mike Holmes]

Okay.. I'm going to try this one more time, but if we still don't see eye to eye, I'm just gonna drop it

Fair enough.

[/quote].. A weak orc is still stronger than a weak human. A strong orc will always be stronger than a strong human. A 1-yo baby orc will be stronger than a 1-yo baby human.[/quote]Speaking in average terms. Sure. I never disagreed with any of this. It's your setting, and if you say Orcs are stronger on average, then so be it.

The "reality" of the game supports this, so shouldn't the system (which attempts to mimic physics) also support this?

OK, here's where the GNS stuff comes in. You have to decide what your point based CharGen is about. Are the points there to make the players create more average, and "realistic" characters? Or is the system there for balance. You can't have both. Because "reality" is that things are not balanced.

What if I you wanted to have a race of cretures called wolfmen who had all their stat ranges higher than the human average? That creature surely wouldn't balance. So now you have to have setting rules about the races that ensure that all the races are closely balanced so that CharGen is balanced. But all this means is that players are limited in what races they can play to a set that are artificially balanced for play sake. Again this limits what players can do for no particularly good reason.

A maxed out orc costs x points, and a maxed out human costs x points. Why would an orc who worked just as hard as a human to put himself at peak potential have to pay more?

This would intimate that the points represent units of effort. Again, this is realistic, but you can't expect such to balance. Either the mechanic is Simulationist, and intent on modeling gameworld "reality", or it's Gamist, and meant to balance characters out.

I honestly don't see how people making strong, none-too-bright  orcs is unbalancing, or stifling creativity.

It's not necessarily unbalancing. But how is players conforming to stereotypes due to being able to more efficiently create effective characters that way, not stifling creativity?

We can call this the GURPS problem. In GURPS it makes more sense from an effectiveness POV for most characters to have to be highly dexterous, than to be highly skilled (I won't debate this, it's been well established on boards specific to GURPS). So what happens is that most players build such characters this way. Despite possibly wanting a less dexterous and more skilled characters. Those who do make characters the other way are penalized by having less effective characters. Essentially a penalty on creativity.

So if I want to be a powerful warrior with a high body score, your system rewards me if I go with the orc. If I want a smart trader sort, the system rewards me by going with whatever race makes sense there. And penalizes me for wanting to play an orc trader. I want to be an orc trader! I love that idea.

... although the idea of a marginal success (where somethin' bad happens, even though you succeeded) is an idea I'm somewhat reluctant to let go of.  

I like the marginal success thing a lot. How about a second roll less than or under your TR+Success Margin+10 to avoid a negative effect (this would allow those negative effects for anyone at anytime potentially)? Or if you don't want to add such a roll, just do what you did before. Any roll that a player actually decides to make against a TR less than 1 (2?) would result in some unintended side effect. Makes the player think twice before even attempting such an action.

Easier than all this, though, would be a simple standard fumble rule. A success margin of, oh, say, -10 or worse means that somthing awful happended on the attempt. Or you could use them all.

Actually, I'd rather not encode it, so much as leave it open as an option.

Cool, encode it as an option. This is the kind of note on how to use the mechanics that really help a GM. Give several examples.

Do Earth and Fire attributes balance? I think so, for the most part.

You make some good arguments.  

Agility is the only Fire attribute which effects speed. Dexterity is a measure of raw, untrained skill, whereas Wits is a measure of ability to think and react quickly. These three things all have an effect on your combat prowess, which is why I decided that they would all effect initiative. So agility is your overall speed, dexterity is your ability to move and attack effectively, and wits is your ability to think quickly and change strategies on the fly. Does this change anything?

The rationales and desriptions are fine. And they probably all do affect combat. But that doesn't mean that your system is balanced by including them.

Strategic situations where the Concentrated Defense rule would be used would be if you roll low on initiative, and you want to push the combat into the next combat round, where you'll get a new chance at initiative. Survival is the best way to strengthen offense, after all. Also, kicking defense in against a faster opponent will allow you a chance to use at least one of your attacks, in most cases. It could even, as you said yourself, be used to delay whilst friends come to join you in the fray. Example: the warrior leaps into battle, allowing his friends time to cast spells, or join him, using Concentrated Defense to avoid the attacks of the multiple foes.

Quit using my own exceptions against me. I agreed that the tactic makes sense in certain circumstances (and is otherwise a good rule). I just point out that it does not make the slower character more survivable.

If I am slower, and waste offenses on defenses this turn, that doesn't mean that next turn will be any better. I'll still be slower, and likely have to defend again. Eventually, I'm going to get whittled down. It'll just be longer and more inevitable statistically this way.

Do I have to choose? I've seen some extraordinary SCA fighters take on multiple opponents in a way very reminiscent of the battle scenes of LotR (the movie, as I've yet to read the books). I suppose that combatants like that are fairly rare, though, in modern reality. I'd like to think that hobbyists (SCA fighters) can be used to illustrate the possibility of people who once (back in the day) did it for real.

Well, its a spectrum. If you really think that there are people that can fight as well as Aragorn (who has about sixty years of combat experience at the time of LotR, IIRC; he's something like eighty years old) in RL, well fine. Then that's a realistic level. Think that there are people who can fight as well as Hercules in the TV show? My point is that at some point you may want to allow feats that are somewhat fantastic. Or maybe not. I think that you subscribe to the "mostly realistic" school. Which is fine, it's just a choice.  

Okay... I see where you're going with this. but how would I do it? I suppose I'm asking not for advice in this particular question, but an actual example of how you would go about altering the Crit Chart to become a Combat Effect Chart.

Here's a crummy example, but it may give you an idea. The only thing that has changed is the chart (I would revamp other parts of the system as well, but since I think that the system needs further revamping vis a vis HP, I won't get into it).

Code Select Expand

Result Effect
1 Scratch - 1 point
2 Half Damage
3 Full Damage
4 Full Damage -1 to all TRs
5 Full Damage -2 to all TRs
6 Full Damage -2 to all TRs Stunned
7 Double damage -3 to all TRs "       "
8 Double damage -3 to all TRs "       "
9 Double damage -3 to all TRs Knockdown
10 Double damage -4 to all TRs "       "
11 Double damage -4 to all TRs "       "
12 Double damage -4 to all TRs Maimed
13 Double damage -4 to all TRs "       "
14 Double damage -5 to all TRs "       "
15 Double damage -5 to all TRs Unconscious
16 Triple Damage -5 to all TRs "       "
17 Triple Damage -5 to all TRs "       "
18+ Triple Damage Instantly Killed

Better in my mind would be to just get rid of the hit points entirely. The formula for the damage roll would be TR = Attacker's Str + Weapon Damage + Margin of Success - Target's body -Target's armor rating, rolled by the Attacker (note that though this formula seems complicated, your system has all these calculatons just at different steps). His Margin of Success (lets abreviate that as MS for further discussion) gets compared to your chart for effects on the target. Chuck onto the chart all of the effects that you have for the different levels of wounded like penalties to strength, etc. How do you kill a character? Well, after several wounds the defender's TRs and stats will have dropped so much that he'll be easy to get a "killed" result on.

Or something like that. This corresponds to my "Wounds do not Add Linearly" rant, which I won't recount here. Hit points are silly. Your penalties (including death) are what counts in the end. Why have two systems?

As I create the spell lists, I put spells where I think they ought to go, according to power level. If that's "Zen" then I suppose that's what I did.

Yep, that's what I meant to imply. No system to it, just putting thinngs where you feel is good. The obvious disadvantage which I mentioned is that you have to playtest then to see if they really make sense at the level you assigned them. Which may mean in game adjustments, which may in turn mean a less fun playtest. Not a big deal though. I was just wondering if you had a more mechanical system.

Hmm. Well, at current the "seep" rate is 1 per day for every two points of your Mana attribute, thereby creating a range of 1 (for Mana of 1 or 2) to 5 (for Mana of 9 or 10) per day. I didn't do it because it made the most sense, only because I needed a rate. Basically I patched a hole, until I could find a better fix for it.
 Still though, a range of 1 point every 6-60 hours is a little too much, I think. That would be a range of 1 point every 2.5 days to 4 points per day. I think I'll play around with the idea, but I don't think I'll use your exact numbers.

Thank heavens. Please do not use anything here without messing with it yourself. Anything I post is an example only, and should be tweaked to fit your system as best it can be. I'm not here to make mechanics, but to suggest means and methods of making mechanics. You should always be trying to outdo me. Lord knows there are better designers than I.

As for gods.. No.

Good choice. Just curious how you were going to handle such system-wise.

So is there no religion at all? Or is it just that the gods that are prayed to don't respond in any practical way? Can one get power from worshiping an Avatar?

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

Some excellent points, and finally, I think, some resolution on some issues. And from the points quoted below, my place as a primarily sim gamer is strengthened, and thereby my choice to make the game very much simulationist. (note: prior to coming to this forum, strongly gamist players were considered to be bad roleplayers... Now I realize that they just have a different way of enjoying gaming. Still doesn't mean I want to play with strongly gamist players, though)

OK, here's where the GNS stuff comes in. You have to decide what your point based CharGen is about. Are the points there to make the players create more average, and "realistic" characters? Or is the system there for balance. You can't have both. Because "reality" is that things are not balanced.

What if I you wanted to have a race of cretures called wolfmen who had all their stat ranges higher than the human average? That creature surely wouldn't balance. So now you have to have setting rules about the races that ensure that all the races are closely balanced so that CharGen is balanced. But all this means is that players are limited in what races they can play to a set that are artificially balanced for play sake. Again this limits what players can do for no particularly good reason.

 Well, a balance does exist in the primary PC races. Each of the bonuses is balanced out by a penalty to another attribute, or a special ability (such as the Drakken's ability to fly, and their tails) If the GM wants to take one of the races out of the Creatures chapter (such as drakes, or even dragons) and allow it for player characters, that's his/her own issue. There is no balance with those races.

This would intimate that the points represent units of effort. Again, this is realistic, but you can't expect such to balance. Either the mechanic is Simulationist, and intent on modeling gameworld "reality", or it's Gamist, and meant to balance characters out.

Exactly. Advancing stats* is a matter of study, exercise, or other forms of practice. Even for the beginning character, it is assumed that their life, up to that point, was spent in improving their stats. In-game, the system for advancing stats requires game-time spent in improving the ability, and an expenditure of points. The point expenditure represents effort, because, as we all should know, you can read through a history book for hours on end, and still not learn anything about history. You've got to put some effort into it.

It's not necessarily unbalancing. But how is players conforming to stereotypes due to being able to more efficiently create effective characters that way, not stifling creativity?

We can call this the GURPS problem. In GURPS it makes more sense from an effectiveness POV for most characters to have to be highly dexterous, than to be highly skilled (I won't debate this, it's been well established on boards specific to GURPS). So what happens is that most players build such characters this way. Despite possibly wanting a less dexterous and more skilled characters. Those who do make characters the other way are penalized by having less effective characters. Essentially a penalty on creativity.

I can see your point here. Hmm..

So if I want to be a powerful warrior with a high body score, your system rewards me if I go with the orc. If I want a smart trader sort, the system rewards me by going with whatever race makes sense there. And penalizes me for wanting to play an orc trader. I want to be an orc trader! I love that idea.

 Well, the character creation system (in theory, again, this is something which we will see in practice) encourages differences. Players that like to challenge themselves will also pick these unusual types.. But again, all characters will cost about the same amount of points in the beginning. Where an orc warrior will put most of his points into stats which improve his abilities in combat, an orcish trader would put his points into stats which would improve his trading abilities. He will be smarter than the average orc, and quite possibly smarter than the "average" human. His skills will reflect a trader, and... well, an orcish trade caravan is something few raiders will attack, and that's not even considering the requisite caravan guards. In this last point, the setting and the system hopefully encourages variations. Also.. Imagine an orcish blacksmith..? Uh-huh. S'what I thought.

I like the marginal success thing a lot. How about a second roll less than or under your TR+Success Margin+10 to avoid a negative effect (this would allow those negative effects for anyone at anytime potentially)? Or if you don't want to add such a roll, just do what you did before. Any roll that a player actually decides to make against a TR less than 1 (2?) would result in some unintended side effect. Makes the player think twice before even attempting such an action.

Easier than all this, though, would be a simple standard fumble rule. A success margin of, oh, say, -10 or worse means that somthing awful happended on the attempt. Or you could use them all.

 Hmm. I'll think upon these ideas.

Well, its a spectrum. If you really think that there are people that can fight as well as Aragorn (who has about sixty years of combat experience at the time of LotR, IIRC; he's something like eighty years old) in RL, well fine. Then that's a realistic level. Think that there are people who can fight as well as Hercules in the TV show? My point is that at some point you may want to allow feats that are somewhat fantastic. Or maybe not. I think that you subscribe to the "mostly realistic" school. Which is fine, it's just a choice.

 I guess I can see where you're coming from. (Aragorn was 80? He didn't look it.. 'sides, I was thinking of.. what's his name, the other guy, before he managed to get taken down by that one orc-goblin ugly-mutha thing with the arrows) I actually want to choose somewhere mid-spectrum, though. I like some basic realism, but where something teeters between realism and heroism, I'll probably choose toward the heroism side. It's nice to be able to do heroic things.. but the corrollary is that your foes may be just as capable.

Code Select Expand


Result Effect
1   Scratch - 1 point    
2   Half Damage    
3   Full Damage    
4   Full Damage    -1 to all TRs
5   Full Damage    -2 to all TRs
6   Full Damage    -2 to all TRs Stunned
7   Double damage    -3 to all TRs "       "
8   Double damage    -3 to all TRs "       "
9   Double damage    -3 to all TRs Knockdown
10   Double damage    -4 to all TRs "       "
11   Double damage    -4 to all TRs "       "
12   Double damage    -4 to all TRs Maimed
13   Double damage    -4 to all TRs "       "
14   Double damage    -5 to all TRs "       "
15   Double damage    -5 to all TRs Unconscious
16   Triple Damage    -5 to all TRs "       "
17   Triple Damage    -5 to all TRs "       "
18+   Triple Damage    Instantly Killed  


Better in my mind would be to just get rid of the hit points entirely. The formula for the damage roll would be TR = Attacker's Str + Weapon Damage + Margin of Success - Target's body -Target's armor rating, rolled by the Attacker (note that though this formula seems complicated, your system has all these calculatons just at different steps). His Margin of Success (lets abreviate that as MS for further discussion) gets compared to your chart for effects on the target. Chuck onto the chart all of the effects that you have for the different levels of wounded like penalties to strength, etc. How do you kill a character? Well, after several wounds the defender's TRs and stats will have dropped so much that he'll be easy to get a "killed" result on.

Or something like that. This corresponds to my "Wounds do not Add Linearly" rant, which I won't recount here. Hit points are silly. Your penalties (including death) are what counts in the end. Why have two systems?

Okay, I think I see where you're going with the chart. I won't use it as is, certainly, but I think I can definitely use it. A couple changes I'll probably make off the top of my head is that the minimum on there would be 0 (as in, you hit your TR exactly) which would be an effect of scratch. I also won't go into double damage, due to the way Maimed and Instantly Killed work. Final change that came to me just by looking at the chart is that the body roll will be rolled only on a negative effect, such as stunned, knockdown, maimed, or instantly killed, to avoid the effect, but not the TR penalty. Other than those immediate changes.. We'll see.
 As for scrapping hitpoints, I hope you'll forgive me for not doing so. They're not exactly hitpoints in the traditional sense, but more like the hit levels used by White Wolf, except that it does vary, whereas White Wolf's does not. Anyway.. If I don't scrap hitpoints, will you still play Mage Blade when it's finished, or is the problem irreconcilable to you?

So is there no religion at all? Or is it just that the gods that are prayed to don't respond in any practical way? Can one get power from worshiping an Avatar?

 Okay, here's the deal with Avatars, maybe you can help me clarify the point.. They DO exist. There is no doubt, because they have been seen many times by different people. Some of them are less frequently seen, but no one can doubt that Avatars exist. They do sponsor certain organizations or people (the elemental Avatars take active interest in the Elemental Schools, for example) but there is no specific worship of them. (The Elemental Schools do revere their Avatars, but they don't worship them. They treat them much like someone who has obtained ultimate understanding) However, as I said, some instances of worship do exist, specifically in two Schools.. The Vivomancers and the Necromancers. Both Schools have a churchlike organization (Vivos are very close to monastic, where as the Necros have an almost Roman Catholic organization) and do worship their respective Avatars (Vitro and Necos), though not as gods.
 The point is that I don't want the people of Tuathinsul (the specific setting) to even have a concept for gods**. What I'm not certain of is how to convey this. I don't want players, especially those most familiar with D&D to think "Oh, Avatar is just another word for god." Even those who literally worship their Avatar do not believe that they gain their powers from the Avatar. Their power is magic, not divine blessing, and thus comes from within. The Avatars, being the personification of the concept or force, do have knowledge that no mortal does of that particular concept/force, and may bestow this knowledge on followers who please them, but this is not in itself power, though application of the knowledge (ie. through spells, or what have you) can lead to power.

 Do I sufficiently convey the concept, or do you still get the feeling that "Avatar is just another word for god"?



*stats, in all uses, refers to both attributes and skills and in some uses memorized spells, hitpoints and equipment.
**there is one exception in concept to the rule of "no gods" but that is neither here nor there, at this point. If you really want to know specifics, PM me.

[contracycle]

I fear that we use avatar too interchangably with "persona" these days for it to be risk free - you might consider "oracle" or "sybil" or something related to information rather than impersonation.  In fact I quite like idea of an oracular source magic distinct form its source of power.

I would also caution against "vivo" and "necro".  For one thing I worry it might establish their opposition too strongly.  Do you intend for them to be in real cnflict, or is this just a colourful distinction of player character abilities?  And they are from the real world which can be jarring.  It might be worth naming them after cocnepts or leaders and then defining their differences in approach and method in the accompanyibng text.  Are they going to be mechanically distinct?

[contracycle]

heroism side. It's nice to be able to do heroic things.. but the corrollary is that your foes may be just as capable.

Boromir?  Anyway, I suspect that if you are not trouncing your enemies, you are not really powerful.  Beware too much balancing.

[Lance D. Allen]

Wow, quick responses, Contracycle.. I wasn't even done reading other threads in this folder yet.

Boromir?

Yes! Him! He was kicking some major goblin butt even after catching a couple arrows in the torso.

Anyway, I suspect that if you are not trouncing your enemies, you are not really powerful. Beware too much balancing.

 Hence the metagame mechanics, which will apply only to PCs and the GM's primary villains.. If it really comes down to it, a character can use one of their (limited) Heroism points to pull off some heroics and trounce numerous foes, ala Boromir in the aforementioned scene.

From the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: av·a·tar
Pronunciation: 'a-v&-"tär
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit avatAra descent, from avatarati he descends, from ava- away + tarati he crosses over —more at UKASE, THROUGH
Date: 1784
1 : the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
2 a : an incarnation in human form b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3 : a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity

This is where I am getting the meaning of my word Avatar, most specifically from definition 2 (bolded). They are incarnations of various concepts and forces, with human form manifestations (for most) or semi-human manifestations. Oracle and Sybil do not match the meaning I intend.

As for Necros and Vivos, yes they are in opposition, though it's not particularly active. Vivos are Life Mages, whereas Necros are Death Mages. Vivos heal, and at the upper levels can resurrect (maybe.. still not certain if I want resurrection to be possible) and destroy undead when the need arises. Necros work with decay and raising the dead as undead. Normally they don't work overtly against each other, because they are both members of the Concilium Veneficia (Council of Magic). Also, the Vivomancers are a pacifistic Order* (which means they're not your typical warrior clerics of D&D) which means they have certain protections by the Concilium Veneficia, and the Concilium Rei (High Council, ruling body of Tuathinsul). Necros, while not being pacifistic, are encouraged by their order to be more studious than combative. Such antics are generally left to the affiliate orders of Vita Luxor (allies of the Vivos) and Dubh Necora (allies of the Necros)

*specifically they can do no harm to the living. As a result of this, I don't see a great deal of Vivomancer PCs, but I could be wrong.

[Mike Holmes]

Boromir?

Yes! Him! He was kicking some major goblin butt even after catching a couple arrows in the torso.

Yep, and only about fifty years old (actually I'm totally guessing on that one, but it sounds about right). A youngster as far as those of Dunedain and Numenorean blood go. You see, they're ever so slightly elvish. And Elves are immortal in ME. In fact I think Aragorn and Elrond are technically related, though separated by like twenty or thirty generations. I love the line where he says, "I was there that day three thousand years ago...". How many EXP can one accumulate in three thousand years?

But now I'm getting wayyy OT.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

A few notes:

Gareth was saying that the term Avatar has become weighted around here. Just wanrning you that people might get confused by your more traditional use.

I think your avatar concept is interesting. But humans, at least, and maybe other races as well, are going to believe in things bigger than themselves. It's hard to imagine a world with no religion assuming that their psychology isn't vastly alien from ours. That's not to say that there can't objectively be no gods. You can declare that no such beings exist in your universe. But that won't stop the people of your world from believing that there are gods. Unless you have a serious rationale. Perhaps there is physical evidence of how the universe was created and its nature that was known to all. That would be hard to imagine, but I suppose you could come up with something. Even with gods like in D&D, I still think people might believe in a supreme being above those gods. After all, where did the gods come from? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Actually, this is setting stuff, and you said you wanted to stay away from it. Which is fine by me. I just wanted to see if you had missed an area of the mechanics in forgetting to enumerate divine powers. But your setting has none, so it's all good.

The Hit Points don't break the game. At the very least, you have avoided the serious pitfall of escallating hit points.

But to be very honest I would be unlikely to play your game anyhow, unless there was a whole lot of work put into it. In every case where your system has good points (and there are a few), there are games that I think are better. Nothing in your system is really at all innovative. Every suggestion that I've given has been based off of some other good game. Your rules have some examples of what were innovations in games years ago, but have been done better since.

Perhaps your setting would carry it, but I can't really say until we see it. But I have to say I doubt that too. If your world is so focused on magic, and the setting is so good, why are you just now figuring out how mages get their power? The Avatar thing sounds like it has potential, but is largely unformed yet. Or so it seems.

Your game is shaping up to be a classic example of a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" in Edwards terminology. It has it's heart in the right place, but it's making all the same mistakes. But it has potential. As opposed to PFs vaporware that is just an idea. So, I don't mean to be discouraging. But I wouldn't want to leave you believing that I thought that you had something that was really new. As such I thnk that you'll find that there will be some interest in your game, but just cursory. Unless it changes.

Sorry, that all sounds harsh reading it. But keep in mind that it's just my opinion. You are up against a lot of tough competition. I mean you are talking about publishing this sucker, right? Given that, it has to pass a very high standard.  
Mike

[Henry Fitch]

As for the religion thing, it seems a little little bit like religious Taoism. Mostly philosophical, some divinish beings who are not all-powerful and who are at least partly physical beings. In fact, they are "people who have achieved ultimate understanding." Sounds somewhat like Mage Blade metaphysics. All I'm saying is, it's conceivable to have a group of people that doesn't believe in traditional "higher beings."