Weem's Skill, Attribute and Abilites Purchasing Structure

[weem]

Well, it's finally time to make my first post here. Let me start off immediately by thanking you all, and especially Ron for the loads of information. I was so intimidated that before even getting to this point (posting this thread) I have spent days now reading everything I can find with regards to game design, the glossary's, Big Model info, everything.

With that said, I have been playing RPG's for over 19 years now (since I was 12 and am 31 now) and have always wanted to create my own system (have done some in the past, but those are old now) hence coming here.

I have finally written out some things that have been in my head recently and I wanted to get some eyes on them. What I have posted (link in a sec) is a system for purchasing skills, attributes and abilities. It's probably nothing too new, but it ties in nicely with a combat system I have been writing out (but I have left out of the following link to keep this first step as simple as possible).

So, to the point. I kept this as short as possible --- http://www.reddragonmaps.com/images/rpginfo/

What I need...

1/  I need to know if it's very far from original. What does that mean? It means, if it has been done in various ways before that's okay. If it's been overdone in many ways, let me know. For me, it's new, but then again, I have played... maybe 7-8 different RPG's and that is obviously a very very small number so what would I know.

2/  Either way (originality aside), what are your likes/dislikes about a system such as this

3/  Please, chew this apart if you don't like it. I don't think anyone here would hold back, but I need to know real thoughts on it's viability from you professionals, etc


Thanks for your time - I'll be keeping an eye on this to answer questions, absorb punches and generally collect feedback and info. I'm half asleep now and apologize in advance for typos (here and at the link)... I did my best with what my body is allowing me tonight... :p

[joepub]

Hey Weem,

Those are all fairly "poll" type questions. They are broad and will receive a lot of unstructured, undirected feedback. The Forge urges more direct, focused questions.

What are you concerned about, aside from originality? The economy involved in the system? the way skills and abilities interact?

[weem]

Thanks, let me clarify.

1/  Is this viable? What I mean by this is, does anything stick out in an obvious reason why this is not going to work or is a bad approach. Did I supply enough information to even make that call or can this call even be made without seeing other parts of the system and how they interact?

I would say that is the most important, so I will stick with that.

Basically, what I am looking for are these kinds of responses...

-  This is (is not) a good way to handle attaining skills, attributes and abilities

-  I like it (or, I don't like it at all) because [answer]

-  Don't waste your time, this is exactly like X system already done

I hope that is more specific - thanks for the response, I appreciate it

[joepub]

Hey Weem,

Let me clarify now. Your questions didn't need to be any more clear. They were clear in the first post. But they were clearly asking for an opinion poll. My opinion doesn't mean jack shit, because I represent about 0.0001% of gamers (ie, me and those I play with). What's potentially a lot more productive is to trouble shoot specific things, like "Should yellow dots be significantly cheaper than orange dots, or will that make them too easy a stepping stone to jump over?" If you ask specific questions like that, then I can weight those questions objectively and say, for example, "If yellow dots are too cheap, you run the risk of having orange dots feel like they don't have pre-requisites, because yellow dots are so cheap they don't feel like they're earned". That's probably more useful, in most cases, than "I like this."

And regardless of what questions you ask, people will always end up giving their opinion. So asking for it isn't strictly necessary.

Anyways, enough lecturing. Here's my initial feedback:

I like this visuals of this thing. I think the system looks pretty, and it makes me want to explore those pathways. If the same information were displayed non-visually, I would have a hard time with it. The feat trees in D&D3.5 are not fun to trace your fingers through, because they are organized alphabetically rather than like a tree/circle/web/whatever.

I like that there are 3 secondary "attributes" that have to be branched into. I like that you can have a mechanical goal of "I want to work toward Hurricane Claw IV" and then figure out how to get there most effectively.

This reminds me most of Final Fantasy X's orb skill web thing. If you've never played Final Fantasy X, look to it as an excellent example of what you're doing here.

I think any more than two "rings" would be too much.

Are there different sets of rings? Is there a Wizard Ring and a Warrior Ring and a Baker's Apprentice Ring?

[weem]

Hey thanks a bunch for the response.

The feat trees in D&D3.5 are not fun to trace your fingers through, because they are organized alphabetically rather than like a tree/circle/web/whatever.

- Gotcha. What I could do is actually include it in the end for browsing by GM/players, but perhaps break it out into various pie sections so it's easier to look at (for example, you could view just the "Spiritual" section and see how the flow works).

I like that there are 3 secondary "attributes" that have to be branched into. I like that you can have a mechanical goal of "I want to work toward Hurricane Claw IV" and then figure out how to get there most effectively.

Same here.

I think any more than two "rings" would be too much.

Yea, it could get a bit heavy. I like the idea of 3 rings total, but that probably just ties into the factor of threes that seem to be going on, hehe.

This reminds me most of Final Fantasy X's orb skill web thing. If you've never played Final Fantasy X, look to it as an excellent example of what you're doing here.

The last time I played an FF game it was on the Super NES, hehe. I have a friend with that one though so I can check it out.

Are there different sets of rings? Is there a Wizard Ring and a Warrior Ring and a Baker's Apprentice Ring?

These would be it - there would be no Wizard or Warrior, etc as those are class-like labels. This idea is simply that there are tons of things to learn/attain, and they fit under more natural categories such as Mind and Body as opposed to classes - but the idea of other types of rings is intriguing.

Thanks again for the feedback, I really appreciate it!

[LordKiwi]

Firstly, I like your layout, the diagrams are very clear. If you're ever intending on publishing it be mindful of relying on colours though (unless it's only in PDF), I've never seen a small press book with a colour interior. Maybe that doesn't matter, I don't know, but it may be something to consider.

It looks like it could be a nice system but my main concern would be the XP system. Depending on how you structure the rest of the game, most traditional games encourage you to stick together as a party. This means that in a session everyone is likely to do a lot of the same stuff. This can cause tension even in a system with generic XP, if your diplomat wants to be exclusively talky while the fighter just wants to hit things.

Ways to solve this could be...
1. Split the group. The diplomat talks to the king while the fighter is fighting in his armies. You have to be careful with balancing screen time but it can be done.
2. Abilities in all categories for all activities. While in a fight everyone has something appropriate to do, regardless of their favourite attribute. In D&D terms, Bards can sing in combat while fighter's hit things, alternatively the Fighter can Intimidate and the Bard can Bluff in talks.

Maybe both would be good. since then they could be used less and wouldn't be as obtrusive. Regardless I suggest you allow for some generic XP every session to allow some customisation. you can rationalise it by saying character train in their down time.

Hope this helps some,