Perfect 20: Goals And Achieving them

[Levi Kornelsen]

This is Perfect 20, my d20-based system.  It's forty pages, and relatively complete.

My design goals here are as follows; the first few, I think I'm getting close to, the last two, not so much:

-Remove and avoid all duplication of mechanics, to produce slimmer, tighter rules.

-Work further toward becoming a general multi-genre rules system.

-Allow more flexibility for differing styles of play.

-Create and maintain easy 'convertability', so that users will find it relatively easy to adapt and add things from other systems running from the same basic engine, allowing users to draw on the vast reams of resource material out there.

Which of those goals seem acheivable with this system, and is there any advice you'd give for reaching them?  Are there any other obvious design or play goals I could easily build towards, that I'm not supporting?

[Andrew Morris]

Sorry to throw a bunch of questions back at you, but I can't be too helpful without some more info (oh, and without doing more than skimming the rules, which I can't do at the momen't, since I'm at work).

-Remove and avoid all duplication of mechanics, to produce slimmer, tighter rules.

Do you mean stating the same rules in more than one place, or having rules that overlap?

-Work further toward becoming a general multi-genre rules system.

Are you planning to offer follow-up products that fill in all the details for specific genres/worlds? Or is the GM expected to fill in the blanks using only the material presented in the rules you posted?

-Allow more flexibility for differing styles of play.

What do you consider "flexibility" and "styles of play?" I'm not asking that to be a pain in the ass, it's just that I can't really answer unless I know. Flexibility in character options? Flexibility in rules? Styles of play as in genres? Or as in, "over-the-top, John Woo-style action" vs. "quirky, character-focused relationship drama?"

-Create and maintain easy 'convertability', so that users will find it relatively easy to adapt and add things from other systems running from the same basic engine, allowing users to draw on the vast reams of resource material out there.

Well, I haven't played d20 in some time, so I can't really give any useful feedback on this.

[Andrew Morris]

Oh, and I just realized I hadn't given my first impressions. The document looks pretty good to me. I'm not a very design-oriented person, though. The layout just feels very functional. As to how it looks...well, I'll leave that to others who have actual talent in that area. From the quick once-over I gave the document, your editing and writing looks far more solid than most of the other indie works I've seen so far. There are some punctuation issues that pop out at me, but not to the point of distraction (for anyone but an editor, that is!). However, as I said, I didn't do more than skim through the PDF.

Also, I've heard about the True 20 system, but I have no personal exposure to it. How does your game compare to that one? If I recall, it seems that you share many of the design goals of True 20. Is there something your game does better or differently? Or am I wrong about the similarity of design philosophies, here?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Sorry to throw a bunch of questions back at you, but I can't be too helpful without some more info (oh, and without doing more than skimming the rules, which I can't do at the momen't, since I'm at work).

All good.  I just noted today that it was encouraged to ask questions to ask questions more specific than "whaddaya think?", but wasn't sure how to phrase my goals, so I'm glad for the opportunity to clarify.

Do you mean stating the same rules in more than one place, or having rules that overlap?

Both, really.  As an instance of this, I'm pretty sure that the items currently listed as 'origins' will be broken up into tidy groups, and dropped into the Feats; they're similar enough that the division isn't warranted, though these groups may be given a special mention or note to make them especially notable or similar.  When I add a system for supernal powers, unless it's very different mechanically, they will also be either Feats or Skills.

Are you planning to offer follow-up products that fill in all the details for specific genres/worlds? Or is the GM expected to fill in the blanks using only the material presented in the rules you posted?

In general, my concept at the moment is to add tools for specific genres as seperate additions as time goes on, and then, about once a year, grind them down and revise the main rules to include them.  Overall, though, I want it to be a mechanical toolkit.

What do you consider "flexibility" and "styles of play?" I'm not asking that to be a pain in the ass, it's just that I can't really answer unless I know. Flexibility in character options? Flexibility in rules? Styles of play as in genres? Or as in, "over-the-top, John Woo-style action" vs. "quirky, character-focused relationship drama?"

To answer those questions in order: Absolutely; To a limited degree at least; Yes; I'm not at all sure I can get that last kind of flexibility out of this system.

Well, I haven't played d20 in some time, so I can't really give any useful feedback on this.

That one I think I can handle on my own, but if there are any d20 buffs hereabouts, I'd love to hear their ideas towards that.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Oh, and I just realized I hadn't given my first impressions. The document looks pretty good to me. I'm not a very design-oriented person, though. The layout just feels very functional. As to how it looks...well, I'll leave that to others who have actual talent in that area. From the quick once-over I gave the document, your editing and writing looks far more solid than most of the other indie works I've seen so far. There are some punctuation issues that pop out at me, but not to the point of distraction (for anyone but an editor, that is!). However, as I said, I didn't do more than skim through the PDF.

Straight function is what I'm aiming for with the layout, so that's good to hear.

Also, I've heard about the True 20 system, but I have no personal exposure to it. How does your game compare to that one? If I recall, it seems that you share many of the design goals of True 20. Is there something your game does better or differently? Or am I wrong about the similarity of design philosophies, here?

Nope, you're right - and, if you check the license at the front, you'll see True 20 on there as a main source of Open Content.  In effect, if you think of D&D as the 'far marker' from my rules, True 20 is at about the halfway point between them.

[Mark Johnson]

Levi,

Cool looking design.  I will have to look at it more closely for a better detailed analysis.  I think that it would cohere nicely with Clinton's "Sweet 20" XP system.  Probably better than Sweet 20 works with normal D20.  You might give a look at it.

http://www.lawfulneutral.com/sweet20/xp.html

More Later,
Mark

[Levi Kornelsen]

Cool looking design.  I will have to look at it more closely for a better detailed analysis.  I think that it would cohere nicely with Clinton's "Sweet 20" XP system.  Probably better than Sweet 20 works with normal D20.  You might give a look at it.

http://www.lawfulneutral.com/sweet20/xp.html

Shiny.  I've been thinking vaguely along lines like that; I'm not sure quite what I'm looking for  - but that's not half bad, as yet another source of inspiration.

[Mark Johnson]

-Create and maintain easy 'convertability', so that users will find it relatively easy to adapt and add things from other systems running from the same basic engine, allowing users to draw on the vast reams of resource material out there.

-Remove and avoid all duplication of mechanics, to produce slimmer, tighter rules.

I think that these two design goals are causing a few of the problems that I see with the system as it currently stands.  But I think the game has tons of potential and is very playable as is.  You do have a few artifacts of the D20 OGL proper that you could probably get rid of "to produce slimmer, tighter rules" but might make "convertability" harder.

For example, I think that you could eliminate Attributes and Saves entirely by incorporating them into your skill system.  With things like "Strong" or "Weak" being treated as Feats/Flaws etc.  It would make for a sleeker design, but it would reduce the appearance of compatabilty.  (I note that you have already eliminated Attributes for Monsters, so you are aware that attributes are not necessary for your system).

Which is more important compatability with D20 or a sleeker design?

I would opt for the sleeker design.  I think that there are a whole generation of gamers now who are very comfortable with D20 plus adds type system and are looking to do something else with the same mechanic.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Which is more important compatability with D20 or a sleeker design?

I see your point, and it's a very good one. 

Hm.

This may sound like a bit of an odd answer.

What I'd like to move to is a sleeker design that regular OGL material can be converted to, and which maintains enough of a surface of compatability that people doing conversion will be able to spot easily what outside material ties to what in this system.

As an example, I will be folding origins into two groups of feats (Heritage Feats for racial features and Background Feats for social things). 

I've also been considering fusing Defense and Toughness into the saves, and restructuring the saves as flat numbers to be beaten - that is, hitting a character would be an attack check against their Reflex, and wounding them would be a damage check against their Fortitude.  Fortitude would be (7+ Base Bonus + Con Bonus + Other modifiers), for example.   From the perspective of most d20 gamers, that would be a huge change, and I don't want to go so far as to alienate the readers, so I'd be careful to leave those three traits with the same names to maintain that surface.

It's a compromise.  I just think I can push the compromise further than most readers would expect.

[Mark Johnson]

I think that the commercial success of True20 proves your point, even if you are going farther than they are.  And simultaneously maximizing sleekness while also maximizing compatability will also probably help yourself in that market.  In fact, it looks like you are well on your way to actually doing that.

One area of concern that I have with your design right now is the GM fiat based levelling up system since it fundamentally subverts the reward cycle for play.  While it may be a reflection on how many groups actually play, I think that you might find something that works better.  Sweet 20 is one approach for more player motivated "story" like rewards.  And the standard CR/XP system from D20 seems to work reasonably well (though it advances characters a bit too fast for my taste).  You mentioned looking into other options here.

Also, have you run this in actual play?

[Levi Kornelsen]

One area of concern that I have with your design right now is the GM fiat based levelling up system since it fundamentally subverts the reward cycle for play.  While it may be a reflection on how many groups actually play, I think that you might find something that works better.  Sweet 20 is one approach for more player motivated "story" like rewards.  And the standard CR/XP system from D20 seems to work reasonably well (though it advances characters a bit too fast for my taste).  You mentioned looking into other options here.

Sweet 20 strikes me as an excellent platform for starting with - however, it has a Creative Commons license on it, so I'm baffled.  I have no idea how that would interact with the OGL, unless Clinton stops in to advise me on it.

Also, have you run this in actual play?

Sort of.  That is, for the last couple of years, most of my sit-down games have been vastly cut-down d20 variants.  I've run games that came very, very close to being this system (effectively, prototypes of it), but haven't used it as it currently is, yet.  Doing so is on my list of things to do before calling any revision "done", though.