D20 Lite Variant

[Gary S.]

First off, I apologize, since I know there're a million D20 derivatives out there, but I figured I'd post about one I've been thinking over. Without a doubt, others have done things like this, and I more then welcome anyone pointing them out. I don't pretend that this's gonna be some end-all, be-all, unique snowflake of D20 variants, and I'd love to see what people who've done similar have done.

Second, I had this post about half-way done when the power went out, so it might seem curt; I apologize for that, but I'm not typing the whole thing over again, verbatim.

I've never liked stock 3.x Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and I never really understood why, until I took a long, hard look at it. My problems basically break down into Feats, Alignment, Classes, and the Combat System. I absolutely abhor the latter, since I prefer more free-flowing, rules-lite combat. Having to essentially use miniatures kills the mood for me. In addition, while I don't mind the spell system, I think it could use a more freeform system.

I've been considering these ideas for a while, but I've never actually put them into practice; it's more like something I've been intending to get around to for a while, and just haven't yet. I figured if any group could give me decent feedback on this, it'd be this board. That way, if there's anything glaring that I'm missing, it can be pointed out. Not to mention any mentions of whether or not it resembles any existing variants, which would also be fantastic.

So, my D20 variant has the following changes in mind;

1) Ability scores are reduced to what, frankly, really matters; Bonuses and Penalties. Each character begins with each Ability Score at 0, and has six points to distribute amongst them. Ability Scores can also be lowered, to a minimum of -3, to give additional points to use elsewhere.

2) Classes are gone; instead, characters get a set number of hit points and skill points, and have to build a character based on those. Hit Points at first level are 10 +/- Constitution, with each level adding the Constitution bonus to Hit Points, minimum of 1.

3) No more base attack bonus; instead, there's a Defense Skill, and a myriad of Attack Skills for each weapon(Long Sword Skill, Spear Skill, et cetera). The Defense Skill acts as a bonus to Armor Class, and the Attack Skill acts as a bonus to attack with the weapon.

4) No long feat list. Instead, there'd be a system in place for creating feats, based on requirements and weather it needs prior feats to be purchased first. The only feats that would come with it are a smattering of ultra-generic ones(Ones so simple or common that anyone is likely to learn them first), and some career trees, which are used to simulate archetypes. For instance, there'd be a Clergy Tree, which begins with some basic priestly things at the bottom, then branches off into dedicated Spellcaster Priest and Martially-inclined Cleric paths. While a character could take both branches with time, it'd allow the character to specialize a bit in their chosen shtick. The idea is to make generic feats be an extension of someones' abilities, instead of just an ability they can learn. Similar, thematically, to Charms in Exalted; there might be only one charm that adds dice, but three Solars develop and do it differently. Which is why there'd be a smattering of simple Feats; hitting better or harder with a certain weapon is something that many warriors aspire for, so there'll be a Feat for increasing damage with a single weapon. The same with increasing your Defense Skill with a weapon, or while unarmored, or while in a specific terrain. Another for gaining bonuses with certain skill sets. They not only serve as examples, but ways for a player to quickly generate a new character without having to build each and every Feat.

In addition, Feats would be bought with Skill Points, allowing a character to either specialize in Feats, or focus on more mundane skills.

5) Alignment would be gone, altogether; the basic mortal is a neutral state, even if they're inclined more towards good or evil actions. Certain beings, however, would have tags attached to them, which is basically a descriptor of extremely strong states. For instance, the Clockwork Messenger of a God-Machine would have the Lawful Tag; the being is so absolutely infused with it that it radiates out from them. A Hellhound would have the Evil Tag, for the same reason.

6) Combat would be completely rewritten. Completely and utterly. In short, it'd become this;
Roll Initiative
First Person declares action
First Person rolls dice, if any
Second Person declares action
Second Person rolls dice, if any
...et cetera...
[Optional] Roll initiative again
First Person declares action
...ad infinium...

I'm not a fan of miniature movements and such. If a wizard wants to cast a fireball, then the DM can say how many orcs he'd hit, and they roll damage. If a person wants to attack, then there's a decent chance they're already in range of the target, unless otherwise stated. And so on.

7) This's a long one, since it's about the only thing that isn't simple or just a variation.

Spellcasting would essentially become a Magic Point system, with an entire Career Tree for learning it. Instead of having a list of pre-set spells, there'd be a collection of ranges(Self, Touch, Melee, Ranged, et cetera), and effects(Damage, Heal, Sense, Manipulate, et cetera). Each effect would, in addition, have various magnitudes. For instance, the Damage effect would have two magnitudes; the die rolled(d4, d6, d8, et cetera), and the number rolled(1, 2, 3, et cetera).

All spells cost Mana, at a minimum of 1 point. This represents the basic binding required to bring the spell together, separate from any other factors.. The Range of Self or Touch is free, meaning that a spell could be cast at those ranges and not accrue any additional cost in Mana. Some effects have free magnitudes. Damage, for instance, gives a default of 1d4 damage for "free". Therefore, for 1 Mana, a Mage could touch someone and inflict 1d4 points of damage.

Someone who spent 3 Mana on the Damage effect could either dump all three into one of the magnitudes, and either roll 1d10 or 4d4 for damage, or distribute them amongst the two, by, for instance, putting one into the die type(Making it d6), and the other two into the number of dice, giving them a total damage of 3d6.

The various feats along the career tree would represent gaining increased mana, and being able to put more Mana into certain effects. There's also an additional Fear that can be purchased, allowing you to gain a reduction on costs for giving the spell an elemental affinity. This makes it cheaper to cast, but more liable to mundane and magical dispelling. For instance, a spell that locks a door by freezing it is cheaper then a spell that just locks it with magical force, but the door can be unlocked through heat applied to it or more easily through an enemy mage dispelling it. Obviously, not all spells can have this applied(A spell that creates flame can't have an elemental affinity for darkness, for instance), but it's possible to apply to a wide range.

There're also two methods to casting; Evocation, and Thaumaturgy. Evocation is done at the moment spellcasting is needed, whereas Thaumaturgy is more controlled, and lets a person achieve long-term and more powerful effects then they could through evocation alone. However, Thaumaturgy, unless prepared ahead of time, is absolutely, completely useless in the middle of combat, whereas Evocation can be fired off immediately.

Yes, I unabashedly stole that last part from the Dresden Files.

All skills cost 1 Skill Point per rank. The maximum number of Ranks in a single skill is Level + Intelligence + 3. The reason for Intelligence being a factor is explained in the next point;

9) There're still Levels. Increasing a level involves earning Skill Points. When a person earns 9 + Current Level in Skill Points, they gain a level, at which point they gain additional Hit Points and can spend the Skill Points they've gained. Then, to get to the next level, they need to earn more. And so forth. Because I can't figure out a worthwhile way that isn't broken to give a character additional Skill Points per level for a high intelligence, I increased the maximum ranks that a character can have in skills. That allows a player to, theoretically, create a narrowly-focused, yet highly skilled character.

Well, that's what I have so far. What do you think? I think it has the potential to be something that is run lightly, but has enough crunch in the background to allow creation of more light content. If you wanted to make it even more fast-pace, you could require that all characters create their spells before hand and are limited solely to those until they make more between sessions.

[Callan S.]

Hi igtenio,

In terms of say, to hit rolls, compare the following two situations
A: You need to make this to hit roll or the troll is going to strike you down, go into the farmsted and kill the family that your PC has come to know and love.
B: You need to make a to hit roll or the troll is going to hit you and take away some of your HP before it dies.

You can see how the to hit rules aren't so important in themselves - its the stake they deal in that makes them exciting. Will your mechanics help bring in/support those sorts of stakes? Before you say 'Ah, that's what the GM adds in', really GM's can already do this in many other systems they already know.

A bit of a cut to the chase post. Is that okay?

[Gary S.]

Aye, cutting to the chase is alright. I did in the first post, after the power going out killed the first draft.

I agree, the stakes do matter; but, my answer is still "that's what the GM adds in". And yes, they can do that in other systems that they already know.

But, personally, I find that the stock D20 system detracts from that. It's so rules-heavy at times that it becomes nothing but a numbers game to me. In your example of fighting the troll, in stock D20, the combat system is so rules-heavy to me that it becomes a very simple Win/Lose scenario; in short, it becomes exactly what you described in the B Scenario.

When I was thinking up, initially, a more streamlined and light version of D20, my idea was to make a system that more easily supported storytelling throughout the entire game, instead of jarring breaks where you take out the miniatures.

There're games that support a narrative function in the game rules, and those are fine. I've played a few of them. But no game can fix a bad GM; no matter what the stakes are in a game system, whether it's as numerical as losing Hit Points or as social as fighting to keep your marriage going, a bad GM is going to wreck it.

The idea behind a streamlined D20, for me, is to give a better platform for a GM and players to build those stories on. A bad GM is going to make the big problem be losing hit points, yes, but a good GM is going to give meaning behind the conflict.

I hope that makes sense.

[Callan S.]

Hi again, Igtenio (could I use your real name - people at the forge usually do),

What I'm reading from your post is not so much supportive (of storytelling) or a better platform, but a 'Gets in the way of the GM less' system. Which could be called supportive or better, I suppose. But it's still getting in the way of the GM, just not as much as before.

Never mind all that 'you can't make a system that fixes a bad GM' stuff. Do you think it's possible for a system to help a good GM? If not, why are you using system at all - at best it would do nothing, or more likely screw over the good GM's efforts.

I think you know system can help a good GM, that's why your still using a system. Your just not sure how it helps. Designing is the difficult process of articulating how the rules can help that good GM.

So, why don't you chuck out the rules entirely? That's the big question. You can answer the question in a broad way and that's cool - but somewhere in that broad answer are the mechanics that will help the GM. If the answers not so broad and instead condensed more to its essence, the closer you'll be to mechanics you actually want. So try not to just answer in broad brushstrokes like "Oh, rules are good sometimes" or such - it doesn't help you and it's not a big deal to me if the question doesn't get answered. It wont be a mystery if you don't answer, it'll just be something that you wouldn't give an answer about. I'm being a little short because many gamers like to think play sort of runs itself in some mysterious way. And thats actually fine - in play. But were designing now - it's time to put aside the mystery and just talk about the very concrete, very unmysterious process behind it all.

Again, if you give a broad answer I wont support your notion it's a mystery that can only be vaguely described. I'll just take it you decided not to answer.

PS: The 'fighting to keep your marriage going' - great example there! Really strong! I think were on the same wavelength when were talking about stakes, which is a good shared ground to have.

[Gary S.]

I apologize, I hadn't found the option to change the displayed name. I don't mind if you use my real name.

To be honest, I am attempting to answer. But I don't think, necessarily, for one reason or another, the answer you're looking for is the one I have. I'll attempt to answer your question to the best of my ability, but I'm not sure if it'll be what you're looking for in an answer.

The reason I don't chuck out rules entirely is because, in the world that's being played, the players don't have absolute control over everything that happens. Whether it's combat or negotiations, the players can't just say "My fighter decapitates the orc" or "I convince my friend that giving up on his current girlfriend isn't the solution" and have it happen. There has to be a degree of randomness to it.

Sometimes, that randomness is really random; if you swing a sword, then it might or might not hit. You can't talk it into it. You can't talk a doorway into not collapsing; you have to hold it up. You can't catch something vitally important thrown at you by suggesting it makes itself comfortable in your hand. They have various variables attached, to which the hard and fast die-rolls help to play out.

Social actions, on the other hand, are a different story. Some are honest-to-goodness random, with various modifiers that might sway it one way or another. In the ideal courtroom, for instance, it's about how you present evidence and what you have to present. You can do very well with little evidence, if it's particularly damning, or you might need a lot of circumstantial. if you're very suave, you can make your evidence go further then a bumbling newbie. The judge is impartial, and you're working against someone else to prove yourself correct.

Then you come to the folks who aren't impartial, and you're having an action with, but you can sway their opinion. For instance, the characters capture an enemy spy, and interrogate him on the location of a particularly valuable item. You can wear him down with arguments and dice rolls, but he might cave in if you offer amnesty to his wife and child, due to his fears of them dying while in his home country.

And, yet other times, the person is just basically unswayable. You go before the King to ask for assistance for your small kingdom against a force threatening to overwhelm it. Assuming that the King has no desire to go to war with them for assisting you, or to waste men, he cannot be won on arguments alone. This could even be extended, to the few people who are just plain unswayable; presenting evidence that a cult members' diety is just a mortal might be futile, due to brainwashing or plain zealotry, even in the face of their death or the death of people around them.

In short, I feel that the rules for physical actions, and some rules for swaying social ones, are worthwhile in pursuing for this variant because those are very firm; physical actions can't be negotiated with and just happen, and social ones can help, but if a person is unswayable, you can be as suave as you want; it's not gonna help. At which point, other things can be used; magical probing, spying, torture, et cetera.

Can those be accomplished with a system that supports all conflict resolution? Absolutely. But I'm not attempting to turn D20 into a universal conflict resolution system; I'm just trying to make the play style that it supports better for me.

Does that answer your question?

And, no sarcasm intended, but if The Forge is primarily intended for those sorts of games, I didn't know. I was under the assumption that it was for all games undergoing design, not merely those of an indie flavor. If I mistook it for something which it isn't, then I apologize.

[jag]

As you said, a hundred (or thousand...) people have thought about this.  I spent about a year thinking about it, until i decided that designing a different system from scratch suited me better.  I'll pass along some of my thoughts, which may or may not go the direction you want.

So, my D20 variant has the following changes in mind;

1) Ability scores are reduced to what, frankly, really matters; Bonuses and Penalties. Each character begins with each Ability Score at 0, and has six points to distribute amongst them. Ability Scores can also be lowered, to a minimum of -3, to give additional points to use elsewhere.

Simplifying abilities just to the bonuses is standard and good.  I might suggest that a +3 is "better" than three +1s, and that a +2 -1 is "better" than a +1.  By better, i mean gamist players will take a +3 Strength and -2 Charisma for their fighter, and have a more powerful character over all.  One way to change this is to make it more expensive to go from +1 to +2 than it is to go from +0 to +1.

2) Classes are gone; instead, characters get a set number of hit points and skill points, and have to build a character based on those. Hit Points at first level are 10 +/- Constitution, with each level adding the Constitution bonus to Hit Points, minimum of 1.

I found ditching classes to be somewhat challenging to balance correctly. I also find it strange that a combat-oriented character with ave con and a non-combat oriented character would become equally 'tough' with each level.  Ie, some grizzled war veteran should be able to take more punches than a learned sage (in my conception).

One thing to note in your HP proposal above is that you remove a significant portion of the penalty in having a negative constitution -- you get the same hp/level if you have +1 con as if you have -3.  An alternate suggestion is that you get a certain amount of hp per "rank" of your base attack bonus, or similar combat skills.  The number of hps is affected by your con.

3) No more base attack bonus; instead, there's a Defense Skill, and a myriad of Attack Skills for each weapon(Long Sword Skill, Spear Skill, et cetera). The Defense Skill acts as a bonus to Armor Class, and the Attack Skill acts as a bonus to attack with the weapon.

It seems counter to your desire to make it rules-lite to remove BAB and replace it with myriad skills.  It's also a change which doesn't seem to have much gamist rational.  I would instead propose the opposite -- lump those all into one or two combat skills (including the hp suggestion above), with specialties for given weapons coming from your feat trees.  Since the "Combat" skill would generally be more powerful than, say, Jump, one might require each rank to be bought with more skill points.

4) No long feat list. Instead, there'd be a system in place for creating feats, based on requirements and weather it needs prior feats to be purchased first. The only feats that would come with it are a smattering of ultra-generic ones(Ones so simple or common that anyone is likely to learn them first), and some career trees, which are used to simulate archetypes. For instance, there'd be a Clergy Tree, which begins with some basic priestly things at the bottom, then branches off into dedicated Spellcaster Priest and Martially-inclined Cleric paths. While a character could take both branches with time, it'd allow the character to specialize a bit in their chosen shtick. The idea is to make generic feats be an extension of someones' abilities, instead of just an ability they can learn. Similar, thematically, to Charms in Exalted; there might be only one charm that adds dice, but three Solars develop and do it differently. Which is why there'd be a smattering of simple Feats; hitting better or harder with a certain weapon is something that many warriors aspire for, so there'll be a Feat for increasing damage with a single weapon. The same with increasing your Defense Skill with a weapon, or while unarmored, or while in a specific terrain. Another for gaining bonuses with certain skill sets. They not only serve as examples, but ways for a player to quickly generate a new character without having to build each and every Feat.

In addition, Feats would be bought with Skill Points, allowing a character to either specialize in Feats, or focus on more mundane skills.

The devil's in the details.  I found making new feats for a gamist system hard -- there's a reason wotc have spent many person-years playtesting their feat choices.

5) Alignment would be gone, altogether; the basic mortal is a neutral state, even if they're inclined more towards good or evil actions. Certain beings, however, would have tags attached to them, which is basically a descriptor of extremely strong states. For instance, the Clockwork Messenger of a God-Machine would have the Lawful Tag; the being is so absolutely infused with it that it radiates out from them. A Hellhound would have the Evil Tag, for the same reason.

Again, standard and good.  I still don't understand why alignments are in d&d.

6) Combat would be completely rewritten. Completely and utterly. In short, it'd become this;
Roll Initiative
First Person declares action
First Person rolls dice, if any
Second Person declares action
Second Person rolls dice, if any
...et cetera...
[Optional] Roll initiative again
First Person declares action
...ad infinium...

Wait -- this seems exactly like d20 is currently (modulo unstated details).  What change are you proposing?

I agree, tho, that d20 combat is one of it's weakest bits -- it's all grind and little tactical choice for players (unless you are a spell caster).  Reforming it is, i think, hard (and one of the bits that made me give up and start a new system).

7) This's a long one, since it's about the only thing that isn't simple or just a variation.

Spellcasting would essentially become a Magic Point system, with an entire Career Tree for learning it. Instead of having a list of pre-set spells, there'd be a collection of ranges(Self, Touch, Melee, Ranged, et cetera), and effects(Damage, Heal, Sense, Manipulate, et cetera). Each effect would, in addition, have various magnitudes. For instance, the Damage effect would have two magnitudes; the die rolled(d4, d6, d8, et cetera), and the number rolled(1, 2, 3, et cetera).

All spells cost Mana, at a minimum of 1 point. This represents the basic binding required to bring the spell together, separate from any other factors.. The Range of Self or Touch is free, meaning that a spell could be cast at those ranges and not accrue any additional cost in Mana. Some effects have free magnitudes. Damage, for instance, gives a default of 1d4 damage for "free". Therefore, for 1 Mana, a Mage could touch someone and inflict 1d4 points of damage.

Again, standard and good.  But the devil's still in the details.

It's interesting that magic in d20 d&d isn't... d20.  One minimal-modification way to do this is to give wizards (say) 8 magic skill points per level, and make 8 more skills (one for each school).  Then casting a spell involves making a skill check (with a dc of, say, 10+2*spell level).  Each cast costs maybe (2*spell level - 1) mana.  This isn't as free-form as would be nice, but it's an easy first stage, and builds in specialists/etc automatically.

9) There're still Levels. Increasing a level involves earning Skill Points. When a person earns 9 + Current Level in Skill Points, they gain a level, at which point they gain additional Hit Points and can spend the Skill Points they've gained. Then, to get to the next level, they need to earn more. And so forth. Because I can't figure out a worthwhile way that isn't broken to give a character additional Skill Points per level for a high intelligence, I increased the maximum ranks that a character can have in skills. That allows a player to, theoretically, create a narrowly-focused, yet highly skilled character.

Well, that's what I have so far. What do you think? I think it has the potential to be something that is run lightly, but has enough crunch in the background to allow creation of more light content. If you wanted to make it even more fast-pace, you could require that all characters create their spells before hand and are limited solely to those until they make more between sessions.

How do people get skill points?  From experience points?

Also, what of saves?  My rough calculation is that giving each character 2 "save points" at "0th" level, and 1 "save point" per level beyond that, to be placed in any save they wish, gave a total number of "save points" similar to that of the standard classes.  But what do you use levels for anyway, if you already give skill points independently?  Just for combat related stuff and feats?

james

[Bastoche]

Hi Igtenio,

I fully understand where you are coming from as I went through this too.

I think at this point it is a very bad idea to go in details through your ideas in your first post.

And I think Callan has alluded to what I think is the real issue for you:

Why do you play? What makes the game fun? When are the (3.X) rules getting "in the way"? What should grant XP (in your system)? What kind of behavior do you want the players around the table to have the most?

Once you get a solid graps of the "why I ask these questions", then you'll know how to design your game.

For the record, I'm working on a silimar system (rules light classless generic D&D fantasy) but it will definitly NOT be d20. The attack and defense skill system I though of is similar to yours. So if, in forge jargon, we find that you want a system that promotes "story now" kind of play, we might e able to join our effort!

Sebastien

[Gary S.]

My, this's gonna be epic.

Bastoche;

I'm answering yours' first, since it doesn't really require quoting.

For me, I play for two reasons; I enjoy telling stories, and playing games. Probably seems like a simplistic answer, but it really drives my reasoning behind this. I like storytelling in a game, but I don't like the randomizer-less corroborative storytelling. I don't mind systems which are diceless, but I've played with a group of people who went completely rules-less, and it just didn't do it for me. And I enjoy what I believe would be called "gamist" systems. But not to the extent that storytelling should be completely removed. I like, for instance, rolling dice and defeating bandits hiding in a nearby ruin...and then later the same game dealing with those consequences. Maybe they were citizens of a nearby kingdom, and the King things I slaughtered them in cold blood. Maybe they were doing it to feed their families, and I have to either do something to help, or deal with walking away and the consequences of that.

So, maybe the best system for me could be described as "Narrative, with a crunchy Gamist Center"?

I feel that the stock 3.x rules get in the way when it over-deludes my ability to create and play a character in a flood of rules. I feel, frankly, there're too many in play, especially combat. When I sit down to play an RPG, I want to be able to tell a story while also rolling dice to resolve some conflict(Not all). That gets ruined when half to three quarters of a game session are taken up by combat. And it isn't necessarily the systems' fault; I've played Neverwinter Nights, and I know that, with a computer, 3.x runs decent combat. But when it comes to people, who have to manually do math, look up powers, move miniatures, describe a situation, argue about rules, et cetera, it gets bogged down. For me, it kills storytelling when the following happens;

GM: The villagers are being plagued by bandits hiding in a nearby ruin.
Me: I travel out there and see what's going on.
GM: A bandit spots you! Roll initiative!
*An hour later*
GM: Alright, only one's left cowering in the corner. He begs you to spare his life, since he and his fellows were only trying to steal back the grain that the village stole from theirs.

Obviously, that's simplified, since if that was verbatim, there're issues beyond system to deal with.

But it's jarring to suddenly go from storytelling and intrigue to tactical miniatures gaming. Combat should be as quick-paced as possible, while still allowing some fuzzy tactical options. There's a big difference between deciding to cut the ropes of a rickety bridge and being told "Alright, this round, you race across the bridge to the other side to do it. Then the enemy...", and being told "Alright, you can only move six squares, and since the rope is 8, you have to move across six and wait for the next round, oh, and since you're not doing blah, you're giving the archers a bonus to attacking, and you had to run by one of the enemy to get there so he gets a free Attack of Opportunity...".

Some people probably enjoy that. I'm just not one of them.

So, I guess, in short, you could say that I want something gamist enough to satisfy my urges to roll dice, while still narrative enough to let me tell real stories with it, without one getting in the way of the other.

jag;

First off, I really appreciate you commenting on each section. I think the more clearly I can describe them before I begin putting them on paper, the smoother it'll go, on top of the obvious "Why not do X instead of Y?" questions.

Simplifying abilities just to the bonuses is standard and good.  I might suggest that a +3 is "better" than three +1s, and that a +2 -1 is "better" than a +1.  By better, i mean gamist players will take a +3 Strength and -2 Charisma for their fighter, and have a more powerful character over all.  One way to change this is to make it more expensive to go from +1 to +2 than it is to go from +0 to +1.

Personally, I prefer keeping them as is for two reasons; First, it makes it simpler. One is One is One, whether you're removing or adding it. Second, if someone is purposely going out of their way to break the system, instead of making the rules fit the concept, then I don't see why the GM shouldn't call them on it, as the GM should in any system.

It sounds like a cop out, but I'm really not worried about balancing it or snipping munchkinism in the bud. If someone wants to give his fighter a +5 in the Physicals and a -1 in every Non-Physical Attribute, and the GM goes "Hey, why not?", then it's his fault for allowing it. My view on it is essentially "Hey, here're some rules for playing people who aren't omnipotent; do as you wish, and the GM allows".

I found ditching classes to be somewhat challenging to balance correctly. I also find it strange that a combat-oriented character with ave con and a non-combat oriented character would become equally 'tough' with each level.  Ie, some grizzled war veteran should be able to take more punches than a learned sage (in my conception).

Assuming that the characters are equal level, with equal Constitution, the difference would be that the grizzled war veteran likely has some Feats which increase his Hit Points(Either directly or giving him a bonus to his Constitution for the purposes of additional hit points), and/or he has skill points in his Defense skill, allowing him to last longer in a fight.

Essentially, Hit Points aren't everything. You get some, but it's more about how you keep from losing them in the first place. The War Veteran will be better equipped for that, through equipment, skills, and Feats, then someone whose devoted all of their time to being a Sage and Sagely Matters.

One thing to note in your HP proposal above is that you remove a significant portion of the penalty in having a negative constitution -- you get the same hp/level if you have +1 con as if you have -3.  An alternate suggestion is that you get a certain amount of hp per "rank" of your base attack bonus, or similar combat skills.  The number of hps is affected by your con.

To be fair, negative Constitution does affect Hit Points at character creation; at first level, it's entirely possible to have a PC with 7 Hit Points, due to having a -3 Constitution. But once you begin gaining levels, it's assumed that going above and beyond the average person, you gain a little something, even if you're sickly and weak.

In short, if you made Raistlin in this variant, he'd still get an HP per level due to being an extraordinary individual, even if he started with a -3 and 7 HP. On the other hand, he'd have hellacious Intelligence and be an amazing Mage.

It seems counter to your desire to make it rules-lite to remove BAB and replace it with myriad skills.  It's also a change which doesn't seem to have much gamist rational.  I would instead propose the opposite -- lump those all into one or two combat skills (including the hp suggestion above), with specialties for given weapons coming from your feat trees.  Since the "Combat" skill would generally be more powerful than, say, Jump, one might require each rank to be bought with more skill points.

The idea isn't really to add the myriad of skills, but to allow them. Similar to how you have a "Craft <Item>" skill. If your character can use a Long Sword, then on his sheet is "Long Sword Attack". If he doesn't have a skill specifically listed, then it's assumed that he has no working knowledge of it(Equivalent of Rank 0).

To support a Weapons Master-type character, though, who can pick up anything and kill with it, there'd be a series of Feats, either as a separate tree or a branch of the Warrior Tree, which is basically "Use any Weapon untrained and without penalty" followed by "Choose a Weapon Skill; all similar weapons are considered to have half of the Ranks of that skill", followed by "You now have three skills; Melee, Unarmed, and Ranged. Your existing Ranks are lumped into the appropriate one, and you use all weapons in that catagory with the full Ranks". Obviously, that tree would have some major requirements for the first Feat, but the potential is there.

In addition, I don't think the Combat Skill(s) would be horrendously more powerful, since combat would be quickened; If combat only takes up a percentage of the time it does in stock 3.x, then the other skills have a larger chance to shine. Sure, your character may carve up a monster living in a cave; now talk your way out of the five hundred cultists who worshiped it and want to hang you for killing the physical representation of their god.

The devil's in the details.  I found making new feats for a gamist system hard -- there's a reason wotc have spent many person-years playtesting their feat choices.

I agree. Which is why I'm gonna smack on a numerical system. In short, the idea is that each Feat is composed of Points, and each of those points is worth so much of something else.

For instance, you want a PC who began life as a simple but knowledgeable farmer, and wants a Feat he can take at 1st Level to represent it. Each Point is worth 3 Skill Ranks, so with two points for a Feat with no requirements, he assigns the following; "Profession: Farmer +3", and "Knowledge: Agriculture +3". Requirements would give more Points, as well as Feats required before purchasing it. So a Feat with a +2 Dexterity requirement and one Feat before it would have a total of 5 Points; Two as the baseline, two for the Dexterity requirement, and one for the Feat required to learn it.

In addition, Feats would have to be thematically appropriate beyond "My character wants them". A knowledgeable farmer might have the above two skills; It's doubtful you could find rationale for taking "Heal +3" and "Knowledge: Blacksmithing +3".

At this point, that's a bit fuzzy, mind you. Those numbers aren't set in stone, but that's the general idea. That way, if the PC has a reason for being more skilled or knowledgeable in something then his Level allows, he can take it as a Feat. It wouldn't count when it comes down to the nitty gritty ranks, but checks for them would be easier.

Again, standard and good.  I still don't understand why alignments are in d&d.

My guess is nostalgia, and so Paladins and Clerics can point out the bad guy. "That peasant is Chaotic Evil, let's dog-pile him!"

Wait -- this seems exactly like d20 is currently (modulo unstated details).  What change are you proposing?

In the most cut and dry terms, that combat is, literally, just a series of actions or attack rolls. This's getting long, so lemme give an example;

GM: There're five bandits in front of you.
Player: I attack the one that looks like the leader.
GM: Roll your attack roll.
*Player rolls, he beats the Leaders' AC, the leader takes damage*
GM: Alright, the one who looks like the leader drops. Two of them go running to alert the others, you're left with two. They attack.
*GM rolls, both bandits miss*

In short, there's no tactical board, there's no miniatures to move, there's just talking. If the PC wants to do something reasonable("I run to the rope and cut it, slamming the gate shut!"), he either does it automatically or rolls a skill check to do so.

I agree, tho, that d20 combat is one of it's weakest bits -- it's all grind and little tactical choice for players (unless you are a spell caster).  Reforming it is, i think, hard (and one of the bits that made me give up and start a new system).

Personally, even playing a spellcaster, I found little tactical choice. Seems more interested in throwing up rules to slow down play then to give you actual choice and consequences.

Again, standard and good.  But the devil's still in the details.

It's interesting that magic in d20 d&d isn't... d20.  One minimal-modification way to do this is to give wizards (say) 8 magic skill points per level, and make 8 more skills (one for each school).  Then casting a spell involves making a skill check (with a dc of, say, 10+2*spell level).  Each cast costs maybe (2*spell level - 1) mana.  This isn't as free-form as would be nice, but it's an easy first stage, and builds in specialists/etc automatically.

Aye, something similar would be incorporated, in that when a Mage first starts, they don't necessarily have the ability to dump as much Mana as they want into a spell; they might only be able to increase the die so much and by so many to damage, whereas healing is higher. Or vice versa.

That's definitely a good system, however, if someone wants to keep the default spell selection. Could easily be dropped in as an alternative.

How do people get skill points?  From experience points?

Also, what of saves?  My rough calculation is that giving each character 2 "save points" at "0th" level, and 1 "save point" per level beyond that, to be placed in any save they wish, gave a total number of "save points" similar to that of the standard classes.  But what do you use levels for anyway, if you already give skill points independently?  Just for combat related stuff and feats?

People get skill points in the same way experience points are aquired; from the GM at the end of a session/story/et cetera.

Frankly, I wasn't gonna bother with Saving Throws; just seems like a pain in the ass, when Ability Scores and Feats which enhance them can easily be used in their place. Something dropping on you? Dexterity Check. Resisting poison? Constitution. Forcing an evil wizard out of your mind? Wisdom.

Levels are used for Hit Points, Maximum Skill Ranks, and Feat Requirements, mechanically. Outside of that, they're also useful as a method to eyeball how powerful a character is; sure, a Warrior archetype and a Sage archetype have different strengths and weaknesses, but if both are 10th Level, they're closer then if one was 2nd Level and the other was 10th.

[Bastoche]

It seems to me that your understanding of "gamism" might not be perfect. Many things you say seems contradictory to gamist play IMO.

Gamism is about challenges and stakes. Story is not a feature, it's an excuse to have challenges. In D&D it's mostly combat but there could have enigmas, maze and stuff like that. The point is you can take the challenge and if you make it you win (something) and if you don't you lose (something). If you choose not the take up the challenge, you maintain status quo.

On the other hand, narrativism is not about diceless, corroborative, rules-less "storytelling". It's about ACTUALLY letting the player have their characters do "whatever they want" while still acheiving a story. You need rules for that.

Which takes us to that randomizer issue.

I think you almost get "it" but not quite IMO:

The reason I don't chuck out rules entirely is because, in the world that's being played, the players don't have absolute control over everything that happens. Whether it's combat or negotiations, the players can't just say "My fighter decapitates the orc" or "I convince my friend that giving up on his current girlfriend isn't the solution" and have it happen. There has to be a degree of randomness to it.

Everything above save the last sentence is right on IMO: resolution system are required to determine how a player (GM included) can say "X happen". The random part is introduced as a mean to determine "The player gets what he wants (succeed at X) or don't (fail X)" which in pratice translate into a succeed or failed roll.

However, I as a player, am against "random randomness". If Story is important, you can't have a system that allows random events to skewer the story, bog it down or stop it althogether. For example, you are going from town A to town B and must cross a bridge and at "random" the bridge collapse. In a gamist and narativist game, that bridge collapsing must happen for a reason. It can't "just happen". Why? because it does not provide an "encounter" that serves the purpose of the game.

Please do not adress any of the above in your reply. Just think about it. Consider replying the following though:

So, To refocus that discussion, I will do two things. First I will re-ask my questions but with choices of answer and second I will describe my project and you will tell me if it seems to suit your playing preferences.

The choices aren't exhaustive. Pick the one that suits the most. And the most important thing is to answer honestly. Do NOT answer on some perceived idealistic "good roleplaying" utopy.

Why do you play?

a) Because I enjoy making more powerful and becoming better and better at what he's good at.
b) Because I like to exploring a theme with the other players through our character.
c) Because I like overcoming challenges with a certain amount of risk
d) Because I like to make significant choices for my characters that will either greatly affect the ongoing story, the future of my character or both.

What makes the game fun?

a) When 20s are rolling as quickly as orcs heads.
b) When you witness an event where a fellow player must ponder to make a though choice
c) When the scenes (or encounters) "really matter" for waht will come next
d) Designing a character that is good or the best at a given task

What should grant XP (in your system)?

a) good so-called "roleplay"
b) killing monsters
c) going along with the GM's "big thing"

What kind of behavior do you want the players around the table to have the most?

a) making good tactical decisions during scenes
b) designing characters that fits well with the others from a tactical standpoint
c) agreeing beforehand on what the campaign will be about and make characters accordingly. "be about" being a specific short or medium or long term "story goal" or upholding an ideal.
d) Having players make characters that are ticking time bomb on a psychological/moral standpoint.

The answers certainly aren't the best and I'm sure the old timers of this board could come up with something better but it's a starting point.

Now I'm describing my project: It's a game (set in D&D fantasy setting. For us it will be Forgotten Realms) about a players defined common goal, character growth and action. It's also about good and evil and the fact that everyone has some of each in them. It's rules light and I hope that a single skill-based task resolution mechanic will cover all situations: Declare intent. Declare Task. The GM set conscequences for failure and sets the obstacle. That's it.

[Callan S.]

Gary,

I can see your justification for keeping physical action rules (and some social rules). But it doesn't describe why you've thrown out the idea of rules which introduce stakes to the game. Describing how you can't hit with a sword just cause you wanna, doesn't answer why you've thrown out the idea of having rules that introduce a rocky marriage, for example.

No worries if you don't want to describe that, just offering it as something to think about. But the length and depth of your post on it makes me think you do want to describe why you've turfed the idea of rocky marriage rules. But despite wanting to describe why, you've declined to answer and described an unrelated subject. But again, if you don't want to describe why, that's cool. Just offering it because in practical terms I think it might be useful to you to think about.

Side note: I think terms like gamist or narrativist don't need to be brought in. The more you think about the issue your trying to tackle, the clearer it will become how that issue should be tackled - ie, through a nar, gamist or sim means. Think about the issue(s) first and foremost - everything else becomes more clear after that.

[David B. Goode]

Gary,

While I'm not aware of a game that does everything yours does, there are three I can think of that do part of it, and they might make good resources for you.

True20 is a Green Ronin system that uses Modifiers (-2, +4, etc.) instead of the standard ability scores of the d20 System. They also do away with classes, at least in Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition (which was one game that led to True 20, and the combat rules are much looser and don't require miniatures.

Modern20 is a more streamlined version of the d20 Modern rules.

Star Wars Saga Edition is also a very stream-lined set of the d20 System rules, and possibly the predecessor to D&D 4. I like crunchier combat, but it takes a lot of the rules out of the way.

I hope this is helpful, and good luck with your game.

David

[Max Maloney]

I would definitely look at some of those alternate D20 games.  Mutants & Masterminds, for example, does a great job at doing away with the BAB progression and AC nonsense in a very elegant way.  It also dispenses with HP, which I like.

Unfortunately M&M retains the feature of 3E D&D combat that I personally think makes it so bad.  The action structure in 3E D&D is just awful.  The entire "Move Action + Standard Action" combined with a really long list of specific actions that fit in those slots and then topped off with Attacks of Opportunity... it's just a lot of stuff that takes time, isn't interesting or meaningful and doesn't model reality very well.  Maybe that didn't need to be said since you don't plan to use many of those features...

As an aside, I think D&D retains alignment because the concepts of "Protection from Evil" and "Detect Evil" have a very evocative feel and at least some grounding in fantasy fiction.  It's difficult to reliably have effects like that without Evil (and it's brethren) being a defined characteristic.

[Gary S.]

Bastoche,

I will think on it.

I'll give the best answer I can, but I warn you, I'm long-winded. So, I'm going to do two things; give you an answer to the question, and then expound on it. Obviously, you can ignore the latter, and that's fine.

Why do you play?
a) Because I enjoy making more powerful and becoming better and better at what he's good at.
b) Because I like to exploring a theme with the other players through our character.
c) Because I like overcoming challenges with a certain amount of risk
d) Because I like to make significant choices for my characters that will either greatly affect the ongoing story, the future of my character or both.

D.

While I do enjoy exploring themes, and overcoming challenges, and to a lesser degree(If it fits), seeing the character become more powerful/competent/respected, my major reason for all of those is seeing how it affects the character and/or story.

What makes the game fun?
a) When 20s are rolling as quickly as orcs heads.
b) When you witness an event where a fellow player must ponder to make a though choice
c) When the scenes (or encounters) "really matter" for waht will come next
d) Designing a character that is good or the best at a given task

B.

I admit, I enjoy rolling dice, but without context and reason, it's meaningless. I enjoy scenes and encounters which don't really matter, simply because it puts the others into perspective. Saying "I help out the Innkeeper with his inventory" makes it mean more if my character returns and finds the Innkeeper dead, then if only the latter happens. And while I find it fun to design a character who's optimized to a certain task, it's pointless if the story doesn't support him having such a single-minded determination to be best at [Insert Thing].

All of those, though, support making tough choices, both for myself and other players. Does my character kill the person that slew the Innkeeper, after a botched robbery to feed the mans' family? What about when my character is smacked in the face with the fact that his specialty can't solve everything?

What should grant XP (in your system)?
a) good so-called "roleplay"
b) killing monsters
c) going along with the GM's "big thing"

A.

I really don't have anything else to add to this one. Good roleplaying could be killing monsters, sure, but no reason not to give the same XP for working out a marriage problem as for slaying an orc, if both contribute to the story and/or character.

What kind of behavior do you want the players around the table to have the most?
a) making good tactical decisions during scenes
b) designing characters that fits well with the others from a tactical standpoint
c) agreeing beforehand on what the campaign will be about and make characters accordingly. "be about" being a specific short or medium or long term "story goal" or upholding an ideal.
d) Having players make characters that are ticking time bomb on a psychological/moral standpoint.

I really can't choose from any of these. I apologize, but unless you worded one poorly from what you intended, but none of these fit from my understanding. Maybe, maybe A and/or D, but I doubt in the context you intended.

The behavior I'd want most, and am designing it for, is conflict. I don't think agreeing beforehand on characters and/or themes is overly important, unless the entire group decides on it. If two characters come in and have a naturally antagonistic relationship for whatever reason(Die-hard Priest and Die-hard Atheist, formerly warring towns/cities/nations, et cetera), then I think that drives not only a conflict between them, but additional conflict in pre-existing ones. Do both of the antagonistic characters agree on things when they actually do, or is one so bull-headed that he'll disagree on whatever the other agrees with, whether it's rational or not? If the Fire-and-Brimstone Priest hates the Atheist for being a non-believer, and the Atheist gets hurt, is the Priest willing to heal him? What if the Diety is one of Healing; then the Priest has a dilemma on whether to let his baser instincts drive, or to try and transcend them and give his help where it's due.

In the same way, a ticking timebomb morally or psychologically can create interesting play. If a player creates a character who's a serial killer, but only kills other killers, then we have a sudden dilemma if he needs to get rid of someone who seriously endangers him, but hasn't killed anyone. Does he forego his values and kill an innocent, or does he find another way? If the character is a veteran soldier who has flashbacks and doesn't consider killing the inhabitants of a neighboring kingdom, who he fought in the war against, to be any worse then killing an animal, you have conflict and a hook.

And, I feel the need to repeat, that all of those are only viable with a GM's approval; if he doesn't want a war to have happened or such blind zealotry, then he could ask the Veteran Soldiers' player to tone it down or make a different character. If the GM thinks that a serial killer would be distasteful, then he can deny it. If he and the players want to hand-wave that the Priest and Atheist aren't at each others' metaphorical throats and act as an odd couple, then so it is. But all of those drive conflict of one sort or another. And, to me, that's what makes a good story. There aren't any decent stories about a boy who leaves his small, humble village on an adventure...and just wanders through cities. No bestseller is about the mundane day-to-day life of a wizard, his small alchemist shop and his immaculately happy marriage.

Now I'm describing my project: It's a game (set in D&D fantasy setting. For us it will be Forgotten Realms) about a players defined common goal, character growth and action. It's also about good and evil and the fact that everyone has some of each in them. It's rules light and I hope that a single skill-based task resolution mechanic will cover all situations: Declare intent. Declare Task. The GM set conscequences for failure and sets the obstacle. That's it.

The default setting I'm using is called, unimaginatively, the Eternal Plains. It's essentially a land that goes on forever in all directions. The idea is that, since the system isn't tied to any specific purpose, you can set a game in the Eternal Plains, and expand outwards and incorporate other things. If you want flintlocks to turn up, then by god, some travellers from a distant land have brought them. The possibility of an infinite number of distinct cultures, and even thoroughly advanced MagiTech ones exist. But it just goes on, and on, and on, with no real end.

Also, despite the name, it isn't just a plain; there's every imagineable terrain you can find on Earth, and even continents. I guess it'd make more sense to call it the Eternal Ocean, eh?

Callan,

I apologize for that. My intent, honestly, isn't to obscure or not answer. It's merely that, on the best of days, I'm all over the place. So you ask me why I don't have rules for X, and by the time I'm done, I've backtracked to D.

The reason why I don't consider rules for social conflict is because, frankly, I don't think it could do it justice.

To go back for a moment to combat, it's fairly easy to make combat simple and yet easily scaled. If Person A and B have the same equipment, but Person A has double the hit points and three times the skill with his sword as Person B, then combat allows a slim chance for B to win, but the chances of that happening are fairly slim, since A is going to trounce him. In addition, you cannot give any sort of argument that's gonna keep a sword from hitting you; in out and out combat, you can scale it to a degree.

It isn't the same with social conflict. If you're fighting a weaker opponent in any physical conflict, and they say "You lose, and that's all", that means exactly jack and shit; they can say it, but if you're overwhelming stronger/quicker/skilled, then they'll likely still lose.

If your wife says "I'm leaving you for another man, and that's it", then there's nothing you can do. You can beg, and plead, and bargain, but she still has every ability to walk out of that door, regardless of how good you might be at bargaining or negotiating.

What I am including, though, is skill rolls with similar things. But those alone can't win it if someone has absolutely made their mind up already. If, to go back to the example of a marriage falling apart, your wife is leaving you because you treat her badly, then you can absolutely roll and have it make a difference, but not win the day. If you roll better then anyone can possibly imagine, and say "But I love you, and want this to work", that might be enough to make her stay and work on it more.

In short, rolling well helps your argument look better, and rolling badly makes it look worse, but it doesn't win the day alone.

If, however, your wife is leaving you just because she's found another man that she loves more then she's ever loved you, you can roll; probably won't make much of a difference though, unless your intent is "I'm going to guilt-trip my wife into staying with me at her own expense". If the intent is "Let's make this marriage work", then the outcome is already decided; she's leaving, and there's nothing you can do to convince her it's worth saving.

I don't believe that social conflict needs as elaborate of a system as physical conflict, because not all social conflict is necessarily winnable; sure, you can say that not all combat is winnable either, if a peasant rushes into a battle with a hoard of elder dragons, but at no point can the peasant just decide he wins and that's that.

And, I don't think every conflict should be winnable merely because it's a roleplaying game. Some things are going to happen, whether you like them or not. Obviously, the GM shouldn't be throwing these about willy-nilly, because, while I don't want a roleplaying game completely divorced from life, I also don't want one that essentially is life; most of what my character attempts should be winnable, in the sense that I can win, not that it'll be easy or even plausible.

But those occasional curve-balls can really define a PC as well; if his wife leaves, how's he deal with it? Maybe he goes off and begins drinking his fortune away. Maybe he gives all of his money away and begins throwing himself into battle, in an attempt to end his life. Maybe he begins becoming possessive of everyone around him, refusing to let anyone else slip away. Maybe he becomes bitter towards women. Maybe he dedicates his life to a monastery, feeling that material possessions and friendships are pointless. Maybe he just becomes more cynical and hateful. Maybe he begins following her and trying to win her back. And maybe he succeeds at it, or just gets told to stay away from her. Maybe he goes insane. Maybe he gets religion. Maybe he tries to kill himself. Maybe he throws himself into a string of meaningless sexual relationships. Maybe he becomes addicted to drugs.

And yes, he could experience all of those if he could win to keep his wife, and fail. But if the player is trusting, I think it'd make a fantastic part of the story. And that's just the character; imagine what his party would have to go through, with one of their members doing any of the above.

And, while it may just show how little I read of them compared to some, I have yet to find a social conflict system, or just a general conflict system, that allows that in a way that isn't just downright hokey. Sure, you could give a wife that's determined to leave a high stat for resisting coercion, but not all women who leave their husbands would necessarily have that, and giving it to them for one conflict seems like a cop-out.

So, I guess my reason for not giving a social conflict system would be condensed as "Not all social conflict is winnable, and I can't figure out a decent way to work that into a numerical system.". And if you can't run all conflict in a conflict resolution system, I don't see the point of having a standard one at all.

(A quick note; I know I say "win" and "lose" a lot, but I just wanted to make it clear that that doesn't mean the traditional meaning, so to speak, merely that the character does or doesn't get his way, whichever way that is)

Does that describe my reasoning for it more clearly?

Goode,

Thanks, I'll be looking into those. I'd looked through Mutants and Masterminds, and it seems like a decent game.

Max,

I agree on the entire 3E combat thing. While some of it makes basic sense(Running by someone who isn't moving just opens you up for them to attack you), it isn't anything that can't be described with flavor. If someone hits you badly in more abstract combat, then obviously you went running and didn't see them. Very neat and precise, without the need for a grid.

As for alignment, I agree. My biggest issue with everyone having an alignment is when Detect Evil spots some low-level goon just out for himself as easily as the 3,000 Year Old Anti-Paladin of an Undead God of Destruction looking to consume all of existence. For some reason, I don't think that those two people should be considered the same when it comes to spells like Detect Evil and Protection from Evil.

I think it'd just make sense to go with a tag system, so when Protection from Evil and Detect Evil do become relevant, you know you're dealing with some serious shit.

[Callan S.]

Hi Gary,

I don't think you want to not answer, but you still declining to do so - my sentence structure was awkward in the last post. I'll quote myself.

Describing how you can't hit with a sword just cause you wanna, doesn't answer why you've thrown out the idea of having rules that introduce a rocky marriage, for example.

Introduce, not resolve, introduce a rocky marriage. Okay, she wants to split up with you. Were not talking about resolving whether she does or doesn't, were talking about the situation coming up to begin with. Rules for bringing in that situation, into game play.

Lets rewind a second, one of my post was

In terms of say, to hit rolls, compare the following two situations
A: You need to make this to hit roll or the troll is going to strike you down, go into the farmsted and kill the family that your PC has come to know and love.
B: You need to make a to hit roll or the troll is going to hit you and take away some of your HP before it dies.

You can see how the to hit rules aren't so important in themselves - its the stake they deal in that makes them exciting. Will your mechanics help bring in/support those sorts of stakes? Before you say 'Ah, that's what the GM adds in', really GM's can already do this in many other systems they already know.

Your answer was

I agree, the stakes do matter; but, my answer is still "that's what the GM adds in". And yes, they can do that in other systems that they already know.

My question has been: Why have you left it to the GM to add it in, instead of using rules for this? Why have you thrown out the idea of rules for this, but not thrown out the idea of rules for resolution while your at it?

And you've gone into extensive detail as to why you keep rules for resolution, but none of that describes why you've left it at "that's what the GM adds in". It doesn't answer the question at all, it completely misses it.

Now if you had or have decided not to think about it, that's fine - thanks for reading my suggestion, were cool. But I don't think you've decided that. Each time each time I ask this question about introducing stakes, you start talking about resolution as if you really wanted to answer the question. It does not answer.

Your in limbo, man! It's fine if you want to leave the subject of stake at "that's what the GM adds in". But when I ask why your doing that, you seem to want to answer, but start talking about resolution. I don't care about resolving whether she splits up with your PC or not! Not at all - perhaps latter, but not now. I'm asking why you have no rules for bringing in the rocky marriage situation. Why? It's nothing at all with resolving an attack roll or arguing roll. It's about rules for bringing in something to attack, or something to argue about. Why no rules for that?

[Bastoche]

The behavior aspect is IMO central to the system. The rules should be written to reinforce that behavior.

Since you're talking about D20, I'll consider the behavior expected for that system. The way 3.X is designed, you CAN'T have a "all fighter" party unless some house ruling. The game expects that A) the party consist of the typical 4 characters fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. B) that each player "tweak" their character so that the are good at what their class should be good at and that the don't "overlap" in skills too much. C) that each player master the combat rules to execute the combat efficiently.

It seems to me that what most if not all D20 systems supports does not interest you at all. Therefore, I think it's a bad idea to use D20 as your starting point.

The behavior issue is due to the obvious fact that you can't play the game alone. You must be at least 2. And as soon as more than one person are to play, they must agree beforehand on what "kind" of game they are to play. The rules serves this purpose. It writes down how the players are to play to make the game enjoyable. Now this necessitate 2 things: 1) that the rules really "forces" the player to play how they should and 2) that ALL players agree on that "this is how we should play". The expected GM's behavior is to provide encounters (typically fights) with the appropriate CR, to give treasure according to the DMG table and so on and so forth.

So. The next step for you is to make sure that your fellow players answer roughly the same as you on my questionnaire above. Then, you should probably take a good look at the articles and at this website. If you wanted a stripped down D20 version of D&D 3E, you'd be on the right track with your first post but since you want the also change the purpose of the rules, IMO you're better off starting from scratch completely or maybe trying to find an existing game that fits your style. Writing a game is hard enough work, you're better off making sure what you want to acheive with the rules before sitting down to write it.