system idea - got feedback?

[zobmie]

I want to trim the fat, so to speak, from a fantasy rpg type system... without making it rules - lite

I want it to be rules - fun

so im going through the basics of a few of the staples of an RPG system, combat, inventory, and items.

Combat in D20 is tedious at low levels and long and drawn out at higher ones. Early game combat usually consists of going around the table waiting for anything higher than a 17 to pop up on a D20 so something can actually happen in game.

How exiting is that? not very... the best part, however, is rolling damage to see how much pain you cause to your enemies.

I want to make a system that assumes you always hit, and always deal a certain amount of damage, unless you use special abilities to increase this damage. Armor will be damage reduction, some classes get abilities that allow a miss chance for a certain period of time, but this should be minimal. Any ideas about this?

I also want to copy some current computer RPG's inventory system and give players a certain amount of "slots" based on level, strength, and special containers. Each item will take up so many slots, and you just can't carry more than that. Do away with encumberance and keeping track of confusing weight amounts in one blow.

Im hoping to make a this a streamlined system where combat is quick and furious and full of action packed embelishments provided by the players and inspired by the system. There will no longer be just a "hit" Players will be using all kinds of class abilities that are detailed in description to help more fully envision combat.

What this system does for combat, i would like to somehow do for role playing as well... Make RP flow naturally from the rules. I want the most unruly min maxing power gamer to find benefits and fun in roleplaying.

any feedback you have is greatly appreciated.
i've been juggling this idea around in my head for a few days now and need to bounce these ideas off some human brains and not just my bedroom wall.

[TonyLB]

First, if you haven't, go look at Dogs in the Vineyard, because all of the ideas I'm going to run by you here are lifted liberally from it.

What you want is not necessarily (I think) to say that you automatically hit and draw blood.  What you want is to say that when your character acts it always, every time, creates a new situation that the opposition is forced to respond to.  In DitV this is a "Raise" and is just about the smallest possible level of rules action.

So, for example:  "The minotaur rushes up and body-slams your knight, knocking him to the ground.  It raises its huge war-maul, then swings it down at your prone form!"

What you've got there is a "Holy crap, I gotta do something fast!" moment.  Plus, we've all seen movies, so we're familiar with the notion that the knight will skitter to one side at the last possible instant.  If he's got the dice for it, there's a clear way to explain a counter... then he gets to create a situation that his opposition has to react to.

The other thing I'll recommend is that if you want to keep people involved in the rules, moment by moment, you should give them a lot of important choices.  Or, more jargon-y, there should be a low number of Points of Contact between each decision point.

Classic D&D, as played by my high-school group back in the day, was abysmally poor at this.  We'd say "Look!  A dragon!  Let's attack!"  And that would be the last meaningful decision for the next three hours.  Roll dice, roll dice, roll dice... all of it essentially automatic (what are you going to do, not use your one optimized battle-axe attack?  Please) and none of it any more interesting than, say, pachinko.  Which is to say that it could be bloody fascinating, but in a mesmerizing, disengaged sort of way.

Again, Dogs:  In Dogs you have a dice pool and your question at any moment is "How much do I want to avoid the consequences of this particular Raise?  Enough to screw my chances at winning the overall conflict?  How bad will it be to take some damage, if it improves my overall odds later?"

So, from the example above:  The player of the knight takes a mighty blow that shatters his shield and breaks the arm beneath.  Then he counters with a low, unworthy strike with his sword from... ahem... below.  The minotaur doesn't have the resources to avoid damage, and is felled.  But now the knight has no shield, a broken arm, and a definite stain on his honor.  He's won, at a grievous cost, but the grievous cost was entirely chosen by the player.  So they're invested in it.  It's their hardship, not hardship imposed upon them by fate or the GM.

Again:  Read Dogs in the Vineyard.  It rocks at doing the sort of thing you're talking about.  It also does a lot of other things that would destroy the mood I suspect you're going for.  So there are ideas to be mined, but there's still a game out there that you need to go design!

[zobmie]

Classic D&D, as played by my high-school group back in the day, was abysmally poor at this.  We'd say "Look!  A dragon!  Let's attack!"  And that would be the last meaningful decision for the next three hours.  

The same thing goes with modern D&D as well... to a lesser extent, but after the surprise round is figured out, its pretty much just roll hit roll hit until its all over.

I love your example of the minotaur. Thats exaclty what i want to happen in my game. Evocative battle that plays out like an action movie, where there is no dull moment. Strategic combat where every decision counts.

I've got kind of a skeleton of a system figured out. There are 5 stats (nothing new here) Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Charisma, and Spirit. Your starting stats keyed to what your choices are at character creation.

First you choose a character archetype. Bully, Leader, Savant, Scholar, Sneak, Hermit, or any very basic one word character description. This gives you your starting stats and one technique tied to that archetype.

Next you choose a Race, which essentially does the same thing as your archetype

Then you choose class. These 3 things combined will give you your starting stats and a set of techniques.

Your maximum ability for level 1 would be 30. Every for every 10 you have in an ability gives you one point tied to that ability. So if you have a 30 in Strength, you have 3 strength points.

All 5 abilities have innate techniques tied to them as well. You can spend one strength point to deal extra damage equal to your level to an opponent. Spend one Agility point to gain an extra action in a round. Spend one Intelligence to recall a single use spell or technique. Spend one Charisma to move an NPC's attitude one step closer to helpful. Spend one Spirit point to gain back one other ability point of your choice.

Techniques would look like this.

lvl 1 Backstab -  Requirements -  10 Intelligence, Target is Flanked, Target is Humanoid, Cost:1 agility point - Deal X damage to flanked target - Your character carefully pushes his weapon between the ribs of his enemy puncturing important parts of its anatomy.

As for combat however, im somewhat stumped.

Should i have a flat attack number and a flat defence number... if the attack number is higher you may execute a technique against your opponent. If its not, your opponent has a slim chance to execute one against you.

I've also thought about having multiple kinds of defence, so the large minotaur whos tough frame can take a blunt blow from a club with the greatest of ease, but who's bare skin doesn't protect from the piercing arrow

the only problem with this is it starts to become more complex than i want it to be....

Please excuse me if this sounds like wishy washy rambling, but im kind of thinking as i write.

Any feedback, even negative kind, is welcomed

[Doug Ruff]

Hi zobmie, welcome to the Forge!

As for combat however, im somewhat stumped.

OK, let's focus on this. I'm going to make a sweeping assumption about your design intentions, and another sweeping assumption about your design practice, and you can tell me if I'm right or not.

Design intent - you want combat to be quicker, but you still want interesting strategic choices for the players to engage in. Mainly, you want more excitment out of combat - which implies that it is a major element of your game.

Design practice - Strategic choice is delivered through character generation and equipment choices (stats, techniques, equipment). There are special rules for combat (for example, flanking, initiative, some type of "hit point" system which only applies to combat.)

Now, if that's true, your design practice only delivers one part of your design intent. The strategic choice is there, but it comes at a heavy time cost.

I'll use flanking as an example, as you've explicitly mentioned it in your "backstab" example. How do you decide if someone is flanking an opponent? Usually, this will involve measuring movement rates and/or using miniatures, or there will be some sort of opposed skill check... adding another layer to your game. If you are allowing a different number of actions per round, that's something else that needs to be tracked, and so on.

This is a classic sign that your design is influenced by "D&D"-type games (having packages for Races is another). That isn't automatically a bad thing, but it does limit your options somewhat, and the most likely effect is that your game will slow a crawl every time there's a fight.

So, before I say anything more, a question for you. Are you happy with a "D&D done better" combat system, by which I mean a system which still has combat rounds, damage and hit points and so on, or are you willing to throw away some of these basic elements in order to make combat faster? Put another way, what do you absolutely have to keep in order to make this a game that you would be willing to play and/or GM?

Despite the very strong opinions a lot of people have about this sort of thing, there is no "right" choice - it's your game. However, you do need to make that choice, and I think you need to make it fairly early - and definitely before creating a big list of combat abilities for the game.

[Andrew Morris]

zobmie-

First, listen to Tony. His game is awesome.

Next, let me ask you a few questions.  Keep in mind that I'm really trying to be helpful here, but I don't have enough information yet. Also, take everytihng I say with a grain of salt -- I've got no published games to my credit. Everything I say is the result of the few months I've spent learning here, and playing new and interesting games.

1) Have you read the articles? You should -- I found them to be a mix of interesting, helpful, and not-so-much-helpful-or-interesting. The  Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers articles might be especially useful. You also might find Mike's Standard Rants useful. They're too old to post to, but they make for interesting reading.

Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!
Mike's Standard Rant #2: Species/race/culture
Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat systems
Mike's Standard Rant #4: Stat/skill systems
Mike's Standard Rant #5: The myth of opposed rolls
Mike's Standard Rant #6: Concepts are a dime a dozen
Mike's Standard Rant #7: Designing for Gamism ain't easy
Mike's...uhm...other...Standard Rant #7: You can't sneak up on mode

2) What is your game about? When I read your initial post, I saw "Combat, inventory, and items." I immediately thought, "Oh, D&D." But in your second post, I got the clear impression that's  not what you want. Look at it this way -- why is there a section on what you can and can't carry, unless that is an important component of your game? Put in what matters for the kind of play you want to encourage, and don't sweat anything else.  For example, Dogs in the Vineyard is a great game, but does it have encumbrance rules? Nope. Why not? Because that's not what the game is about. Just because other games have included certain things doesn't mean they are required. Don't worry about making a game that everyone will love, worry about making a game that you will love.

3) Levels? Classes ("archetypes")? Why? Again, what do these elements add to the game? But, if that's what the focus of your game is about, then include them. If not, why bother?

4) Is combat a major focus of your game? It's fine either way. But if combat isn't  what your game is about, why even have a combat section or special rules for combat at all? Why not have a conflict resolution mechanic that works the same for combat as, say, painting? If, on the other hand, combat is the main focus for your game, great, then it probably deserves its own section and special rules.

Finally, you might want to check out Scarlet Wake. Cinematic, bloody combat? This game has it in spades. Download the playtest release and run a few sesions with your friends.

Anyway, let me know where you stand on what you want your game to accomplish and what it will focus on.

[TonyLB]

By the way, when people say (for instance) "Why have Classes?" that isn't a rhetorical question.  The answer may be "My goodness... there's no reason to have classes at all!"  But it may also be "Good question:  Here's why... here's what I intend to do with them that hasn't been done."

I'd love to see a game where class was taken seriously as a notion.  Ars Magica made a huge amount of mileage by doing just a little of this:  You're either a magic-user or you're little people.  That's clearly a class issue (in the politico-economic sense) aligned with classes (in the character creation sense) and it makes for some really powerful game-play.  But, because it doesn't offer equal opportunities for interesting play, it's stuck pretty firmly in a troupe system.

You could do a game where class was real in the game, and where every class thought that they were the most important class, and where (from their viewpoint) every class was right, because they have a different way of approaching situations and applying power.  For instance:

[*]Heroes:  If your character is of the hero class then they are rich, well-mannered and well-bred... because people from the wrong families are not allowed to be heroes.  They are given a lot of training and equipment that will tend to make them better fighters, but their natural inclination may or may not complement this.  Their families and peers (other Heroes, of course) expect certain high standards of behavior.  Think Victorian high society, but with more orc-guts strewn about.  Heroes have many balls, jousts and other social occasions.[*]Wizards:  A wizard always, always tests well.  Their class is a meritocracy, accessible by any who can make it through the rigorous, calcified system of Thaumaturgic Colleges.  They have to publish new magical discoveries, or they are cut off from scholastic society.  They use Heroes as tools and beasts of burden in their research, foregoing the shallow glory of the peasantry for the more lasting acclaim of their peers.[*]Thieves:  Thieves are the efficient, aloof, secretly contemptuous servant class of adventuring.  While everyone else is pursuing lofty, ridiculous, life-risking goals, the thieves are working quietly behind the scenes to make sure that the Heroes and Wizards don't get themselves killed.  Think Jeeves, in Jeeves and Wooster.  They easily attend to all the little details that other classes ignore.  Sure, the Hero got the great big horking sword, and the wizard got the book of spells... the thief will deal with all these inconvenient, moldering tapestries which oh by the way fetch a higher price in the art market than either of the other treasures could ever command.  They think that Heroes and Wizards are myopic idiots who would die in a heart-beat without them.[/list:u]Dang it... I've only started designing the game from all the fun ideas I had while writing Capes.  You guys aren't allowed to prompt me to have fun ideas now.  I'm never going to catch up!

[pyro_alexander]

my collegues and I have used for years an unknown table that we call "the anything and everyhting table" I have no idea who to credit for it as we read it in some magazine that has since vanished.

All quests from time of 1992 til present was based on this simple roll system.

a maximum roll o 36 on 2 six sided dice rolled 3 times.

18 being the neutral ground, all actions were dictated by this roll.

The level of play was decided entirely by the player as the DM simply stated the situation and reacted to the players. As we all had really active imaginations we had great deals of fun.

Example. I first joined the questing trio in a bar, I stepped up to the three and inquired about their journies, this sparked anger in "Vidal" as he was a secretive fellow and a huge fight broke out between myself *a level 1 mage/thief* and "Vidal" * a level 32 warrior/mage*, "Bunky" * a level 56 Paladin, who was a gay pacifist* and "Ashre" * a level 12 warrior dwarf*.
I was armed with a dagger and one spell "ZAP" which was a lightening bolt basicly.

"I roll backwards and cast ZAP right before Vidal's mouth and nose, using up all the oxygen so that he is forced to skip a breath"  

was my initial command for which the GM decided I needed a 24 to do this.
I rolled. 11, 9, 10 for a 30
when one rolls higher than expected the spell has enhanced effects, chosen by the GM so in that regard

"The air that Vidal was just about to take in suddenly vanished with a ZAP and he fainted as a result of that vital skipped breath. He is out for 3 turns"

If I had gotten within 4 of the needed roll Vidal would have had the chance to counter my move with one of his own, but as exceed that by 2 he had no chance.

Another thing is that a player my challenge any GM ruling with this method as Vidal did.

"OOC: That's not fair, GM I am fast enough to dodge that, I sould be able to see his shoulders move as he begins to cast the spell and move out of the way"

The GM agrees and gives Vidal the roll that I produced. SO if he rolls a 30 or higher than my spell will miss him and he will dodge it. luckily for me he got a 12 and with such a low roll the DM added that not only was he going to be unconcious for the next 3 turns BUT with his roll his HP was halfed.


Another shortcut we took was that casting spells didn't need a sucess roll you could just cast them BUT players and monsters could dodge them. Plus we eliminated mana and had our spells affect our HP directly.
It became a challenge to play knowing that I had only 30HP and the speel that may very well save the party costs me 29HP, which means that if any one creature dodges the spell high enough to counter my move will kill me for sure, IF none of my comrades can come to my aid.

Basically it was very simple, we could do anything we wanted as long as we could roll a 36 every time ;)

hope this helped some.

[zobmie]

First of all, I did read the fantasy heartbreakers articles awhile back... and i am perfectly ok with making a game that is "How d&d would have been had they asked my opinion"

My main goal here is to put together a playable version for me and my friends. I would also consider posting it on the internet for free, but making money is not the main goal here.

Second, I guess the goal of the design here IS to make combat exiting and fast paced, but also to create a rules system where the player can be creative about how to use the rules to their advantage. I love making a character who's stats, and the way he plays really shows off who he is as a character.

As a gamer, I love coming up with new and creative ways to succeed within the rules system. Thats why i never was really satisfied with a rules - lite system where a lot is left up to interpretation. I've played many fun game sessions where no dice were rolled whatsoever, but the kind of game im going for here requires a different kind of role-playing.

I wouldn't call myself a munchkin. i certainly dont like to bend and break the rules to make my character stand out just by being more powerful, but when i make a character that fits into a great concept, and i can use the rules to my advantage to give him all the quirks and skills that make him a heroic individual, i get a huge sence of satisfaction. When my character concept is reflected by the rules, and when the stats on your paper play out exactly how your character would act, that is a good game.... for me anyway.

I guess i kind of want to do this whole thing a little bit backwards. I want this to be a role playing GAME with heavy emphasis on the game aspect. I want the roleplaying to come out of the things that happen within the game.

Yes, i do want a big focus of the game to be combat, but i would LOVE to extend the strategy and fast paced action to other aspects of the RPG experience. I want players to sweat over which spell to use as much as they sweat over what they choose to say to the king.

So there is my design INTENT
lets see if i can't get the practice to match up.

[pyro_alexander]

I would suggest that you check out "waving hands" or Spellbinder as is originator called it. I stubled across it yesterday and it has completely changed my ideas on combat. Don't take it literally but analyze the whole game system and what it is built on, I think that this holds a key somewhat to what you are looking to do.

Creating mechanics for a game is easy I've found but my main stumbling block is doing a story. As a perfectionist I tent to go into way too much detail on mundane things and then the whole essence of the story is lost.

Actually the best advice I can think of is what I am applying to business at the Moment.

Write down the rules for creating a good RPG, and I mean look them up and write them down, the ste by step rules for making an RPG...THEN write them backwards and start from there. Sometimes when we are forced to think outside the box of the box we are truely enlightened.
"through the looking glass" ~ Lewis Carrol.

[Andrew Morris]

First of all, I did read the fantasy heartbreakers articles awhile back... and i am perfectly ok with making a game that is "How d&d would have been had they asked my opinion"

Okay, great. That's a whole different animal, then. Now, are you looking to start from scratch, or do you want to use D&D as the basis and just modify it?

I strongly urge you to check out Scarlet Wake. I think you'll either love it or hate it. The combat is super-cinematic and fast, but it's probably what you'd classify as rules-lite. If nothing else, it might help you in thinking about the combat section of your game.

Yes, i do want a big focus of the game to be combat, but i would LOVE to extend the strategy and fast paced action to other aspects of the RPG experience. I want players to sweat over which spell to use as much as they sweat over what they choose to say to the king.

Okay, which aspects? Combat we know. Sounds like magic and politics also...is that right? Or do you mean that you want the system to handle anything in the same way as combat?

[zobmie]

I went digging in a few of the links posted for me earlier in this thread and found this

http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/

now thats what i call an RPG
and when it boils down to it, i think im just going to order a copy of that. However, developing games is a bunch of fun, so im going to keep on trucking along.

the way riddle of steel handles strategic combat and game-play is so amazing.

Do i want to just copy D&D and change the parts i don't like? To an extent. I do love D&D. We play every week, but the reason i started yearning for a new system was because of the problems our specific gaming group runs into while playing. Little hang ups here and there that can derail a game session.

I dont want the system to handle everything the same way it handles combat, but i want the same do-or-die strategic choice making that is usually only found in combat. When the players try to convince the king there is a conspiracy going on in his own court, i dont want it to be a simple matter of role playing the encounter and rolling charisma to see how it went. I want to player to have more choices within the boundries of the rules.  For example, the king is old fashioned, a stubborn old mule, and a bit arrogant. If you open the conversation with a little bit of flattery and then start talking about the glory days of the old kingdom.... THEN warn him of the consipiracy, he is going to do everything in his power to investigate your claims.

rules wise, this scenario would play out like this... the king would have a starting level of cooperation, and 1 or 2 weaknesses listed. If you built a character with a lot of good social skills, he would have certain abilities that would allow him to ascertain before the encounter started, what his starting level of cooperation was, and what one of his weaknesses are.

lets say the king's cooperation level can go all the way to the maximum. he has no reason NOT to help the PC's exept his own hang ups. Lets say this is level 5, just for examples sake.

So the players would walk into the kings court. THe courtier PC would use a class ability that allows him to see the first level of weakness, and the current level of cooperation. current level is 2 and one weakness is flattery. The courtier PC has a technique with the flattery descriptor that allows him to act as if his charisma were doubled. He opens conversation with this skill and easily flatters the king moving him to cooperation lvl 3. The courtier does not yet have the ability that allows him to see the next weakness, so its trial and error, and role-playing to find out the next one. The king speaks highly of a time before the rampit banditry when all men of the land were loyal to the crown. The courtier or another character could now use his knowledge of history, not necessarily a charisma skill, to get the king to the next level of cooperation. A failure would have a chance of moving the level of cooperation back down a notch, and a botch could even freeze the level in place disallowing the players call upon the kings help.

This is the kind of game play that would get my juices flowing. A role playing encounter that relies on choices you make during the conversation, and choices you make while you advance your character.