[Ember] Character Creation and System

[JohnG]

Ok so I'm finishing up the first draft of Ember and I think I've gotten things where I mainly want them, I'm just struggling over how I want character creation and character attributes to work within the system.  I'm still deciding also if I want a class based system or freeform character creation or something in between so I'm posting what I currently have and hoping that perhaps others will have ideas or thoughts that can help me.

Character Creation

I'm going to present character creation in its birthday suit without worrying about racial modifiers and such for the moment, though I'm sure I'll be asking opinions on those too.

To create your character you first distribute 16 points among 6 attributes, Toughness (strength and stamina), Agility (Dexterity), Perception, Intellect, Spirit and Charisma.  These attributes range from 1-5 with no character being allowed to begin play with an attribute above 4 without GM permission.

After selecting attributes you then have 10 points to spend on skills.  Current Skill list is:
Athletics, Craft, Discern, Dodge, Knowledge, Medicine, Melee, Perform, Persuasion, Ranged, Ride, Seafaring, Security, Shield, Stealth, Survival, Thrown, Unarmed Combat.

As with attributes skills are also ranged from 1-5 and should not go over 4 without GM permission at character creation.

Once these steps are finished the character will be customised with Characteristics which basically work like a Merit/Flaw system.  Then characters determine sub-attributes, first of all are Spiritual and Physical resistance which are equal to Spirit and Toughness attribute dice types respectively.  (So if your Toughness is 3 your physical resistance is D8, dig?)  Then come damage thresholds which are the first complicated part of the system in my opinion.

In the interest of more logical and realistic combat I decided that each hit location of a person's body should have its own health with two damage thresholds.  Once a body part reaches the first threshold it is damaged and useless but not destroyed, ie a broken arm or a concussion that knocks you out.  Upon reaching the second threshold the body part is destroyed and the character is crippled or killed by the trauma.  Keep in mind I want combat to be deadly and serious but not unreasonably so, the thresholds are.

Head
Subdued: Toughness x 2 (KO)
Destroyed: Toughness x 3 (Death)

Limbs
Subdued: Toughness x 3 (Useless Limb)
Destroyed: Toughness x 4 (Limb lost)

Torso
Subdued: Toughness x 4 (KO)
Destroyed: Toughness x 5 (Death)

Hit locations in combat will be determined randomly, or aimed shots can be made.  In either case the head is really hard to hit of course.

After this each character begins with 10 points of Virtue, which I will discuss in another post and am also struggling with.

So my first concern is are the attributes and skill maximums too low to allow much advancement?

Does the character come out like you would want them to be?  (Please try making a character or two and let me know what you think.)  Should they have more or less points to distribute?

What do you think of the attribute/skill lists?  Are there any skills you think I'm missing?

Is there anything you think I have missed that would improve character creation?

Is there anything you think I could do without?


Next let's talk about the system.

Attributes and Skills are both very important because they determine the dice rolled by a character accomplish something in the game.  Let's say you want to pick a lock, you'd use Agility and Security.  So you're agility is 3 and your security is 2, each one grants you a certain dice to roll based on the chart below.

Attribute & Skill Dice Value

Attribute/Skill Rank                    Dice Type
1            D4
2            D6
3            D8
4            D10
5            D12
6            D12 + D4
7            D12 + D6
8            D12 + D8
9            D12 + D10
10            D12 + D12

So in this example your agility gives you a D8 and your Security gives you a D6.

Trying to pick this lock is an unopposed test, ie you're not competing against an NPC or PC.  The GM sets a difficulty, for this one we'll say 10, and you roll your attribute and skill dice and add the results together.  If your total from both dice equals or exceeds the difficulty then you did it.  Yay you.

Opposed tests work on the same principles, you and your opponent both roll dice for the appropriate attribute and skill needed.  Opposed tests however are highest total wins, if total is tied than players compare their highest dice roll and highest of the two wins.  Tie again go to the next dice.  Tie again, roll again.

Extended actions (like forging armor) work the same way except you are given a certain number of rolls to reach a much higher difficulty than the average.  Extended opposed actions (we'll say a footrace) also work the same way except you have a number of rolls set by the GM, and whoever wins the majority of the rolls is the victor.  (Gms will be advised to use odd numbers to avoid ties.)

So how does this system sound to all of you?

Finally let's discuss the basics of combat which I may or may not put up a post of its own.

Initiative:  All players involved roll their agility dice and highest roll goes first, followed by the next highest and so on.  Ties are resolved by actual agility attribute, still tied?  Roll another dice.

Round: A round consists of each character taking their turn from highest initiative to lowest, after the lowest initiative character's turn a new round begins.  Initiative is rolled at the beginning of every round.

Turn:  Each character's turn allows them two actions, they can move their agility x 5 in feet, they can attack, drink a potion, etc.  The GM can require an action to take both actions if he deems it a lengthy enough task, ie getting a potion from your backpack THEN drinking it.

Attack: To attack a character takes their attribute and skill for the attack being made, so if you're stabbing someone with your shortsword you use Toughness and Melee (Sword).  You roll your dice for them against whatever dice your opponent is using for defense, highest roll wins.

Defense:  As stated before attacking and defending are opposed tests, when defending you roll with the attribute and skill you wish to use to do so, ie Agility and Dodge or Toughness and Block.  If you win the opposed roll you prevent the attack and suffer no damage.

If you do hit:

Determine hit Location, this will be determined by a die roll on a chart.  Locations have no bonus to damage or anything like that, they just decide where you hit and which body part suffers the damage.

Damage:  Each weapon has a lethality rating and each piece of armor has a protection rating (which is different depending on which body part is hit, after all if you have on platemail with no helmet it offers no protection from a headshot).  This is a dice type, roll this with toughness to either deal or resist damage.  Defenders roll total is subtracted from attackers roll total, result is amount of damage dealt to hit location.

And that's really all I'm gonna post for now, so...

What do you think of the system?!?  As I said this is barebones and I'm not even going to mention magic at this point, but I want to get some opinions and maybe some ideas.  As I said I'm deciding if I want a class based system or not, but I think the system would need some serious overhaul for class based and not freeform?

I'll be glad to answer any questions, let me know what you all think!

Thanks!

[Adam Riemenschneider]

Hi there StrongBadMun,

First off, we have a habit of using our real names on the Forge, so if you wouldn't mind, what might we call you? I'm Adam (handshake). So, lets see what you've got here.

The next thing I'd like to know is what kind of game you're shooting for. Have you dug through the Theory (note the scary capital "T") posts? What I'm wondering is what you want the game to be like - is this a simulation style of game? Is this more-or-less a DnD kind of game, where characters are heroes who go on quests and fight monsters? What is the player's goal in your game? Is there a "win" situation built in (become a god, max out level, finish x amount of quests), or is this open ended?

Getting beyond all of that, I have a comment on your core rules mechanic, and how "average" people stack up in it. You have Attributes on a 1-5 scale, and Skills on a 0-5, right? What does having a 1 in an Attribute mean? Is a 2 in an Attribute "average," where does 3 fall in, etc. I'm guessing that 4 is pretty darn good, even in a medieval fantasy world, if going above this requires special permission.

So a 4 Attribute and a 4 Skill would mean they guy falls where in the How Awesome? Is this an olympic-class level? Is this national champion level? State 1st place level? The best in your home town level?

I'm going to guess that you mean this to be somewhere near the State 1st place level. At this level of score, you afford the character 2d10, added together. If this is true, your difficulties will have to be pretty low for static checks. In the example you gave, you pulled a difficulty of 10 out of the air. This task would then represent something where a State 1st place finisher would only succeed 50% of the time. And a guy with a 2 and a 2 has very little chance of success at all. I just wanted to bring this to the forefront of you mind; naming and describing your difficulties for static checks will determine a lot in how hard it is to succeed in, well, anything in your world.

One thing that I *like* is that it is *possible* for a lowly Joe Average to roll better than Mr. All State. It's not very likely, but it's possible. Anyway, keep at it!

-Adam

[JohnG]

Adam,

Sorry, my name is in my signature, it's John, nice to meet you.

I'm going for an open ended post-apocalyptic fantasy world, somewhat like D&D in the fantasy go kill the monsters sense but with enough opportunity for politics and intrigue for a campaign to never set foot in a dungeon.

Character can not go above 4 at character creation without GM approval, they can advance past that by advancing their character with "experience" gained through gameplay.

Basically 1 in an attribute is the lowest possible, giving toughness as an example a character would be quite frail and have trouble lifting much more than themselves. 2 is average, 3 is above average (guy goes to the gym a lot), 4 is quite impressive (say pro athlete or fighter), and 5 would be an olympic bodybuilder and if a character reaches 6 somehow, say a racial modifier, that wouldn't be Hercules but Hercules wouldn't be able to beat him at arm wrestling TOO quickly.

Difficulties range anywhere from 1 (no real need to roll of course) all the way up beyond 20 for ridiculously difficult tasks.  Meant to mention those things but I forgot, sorry about that.

I'm glad you liked that aspect because that was part of my intent, one thing that always drove me nuts is that an advanced enough character could essentially walk on anyone who got in his way in most games.  I wanted the weaker guys to be at a disadvantage but remain some kind of threat.

Thanks for the input,
John

[dindenver]

Hi!
  This is a pretty interesting system.
  I think making the head the easiest way to take someone out might be an issue. So if I beat someones defense roll by 2x their Toughness, then they are out of the fight. To put that in perspective, that's only 4 points for an average, human-type guy. And for 2 more points, I kill him...
  Assuming that the weapons and armor are fairly evenly matched (as safe assumption for fantasy, not so for post apocalyptic), two average guys with average skills will knock each other out 10% of the time with one hit to the head. And kill each other 3% of the time in one hit to the head.

  Also, there does not seem to be any penalty for a target that has less than disabling wounds all over his body versus someone with no wounds. That is to say someone with 2 toughness that has 3 DMG to the head, 7 DMG to the torso, and 5 DMG each to all 4 limbs, functions the same as an undamaged guy and significantly better than a a guy with 5 toughness who has 10 DMG to the head (1/3rd the amount of the DMG of our average guy).

  I like the brief skill list. But some of the details you put in your examples tells me that you are considering taking a beautiful simple short easy to read and understand skill list and are going to explode it into an endless list with no way to control or manage it. What I mean is the reference to Melee (Sword). This implies that you are going to have some sort of specialization system in place. I guess it matters how that work.s If its a voluntary thing and the difficulties are based on the chars not specializing, then have at it. But, if you have to choose a specialization every time you buy a skill, then you are setting yourself up for a nightmare. Not only is this a bait and switch (look at this small list of 19 skills, whoops, there is 5 specializations for each one so its really 85 skills, good luck finding the one you need), but it allows for a potentially endless number of skills. On the surface this seems like a good thing. But if the game is not optimized for the number of skills that exist, then players can never make chars that match their potential. Think of it this way, for our warrior to be any good, he has to buy Melee multiple times, once for each specialization...
  As to the skill list itself, its pretty solid. I question if Sailcraft needs to be in there, is the game about sailing (With pirates and all that)? Also, how often is Ride going to come into play. Sure most of the chars will be riding animals, but how often will their skill with that animal come into play? I'd suggest replacing Craft with Artisan (or something similar) so it can cover painting and what not. And lump Shield in with Unarmed or Melee. Is it really a separate skill? Also, with a tight skill list like this, I'd make Throw part of Raqnged and delete Throw, again, is it REALLY a separate skill (aiming with a bow/crossbow and a dart/rock)? Also, I notice there is no Awareness/Perception-type skill, was that intentional? Couldn't Dodge be part of Athletics?
  Finally, there is a strong combat bias, is that intentional?
Combat (7/19)
Athletics, Dodge, Melee, Ranged, Shield, Thrown, Unarmed Combat

Larceny (5/19)
Athletics, Dodge, Perform, Security, Stealth

Academia (4/19)
Craft, Knowledge, Medicine, Seafaring

Mercantile (4/19)
Craft, Discern, Perform, Persuasion

Diplomatic (3/19)
Discern, Perform, Persuasion

  What these numbers tell us is that, its hard to make a character that is a good fighter. On average, you have to spend twice as many points on fighting skills in order to be as good at fighting as other chars are at their profession. It also de-emphasizes the role of other skills in the game. If a player were to assume that the skill list was an indication of what the game was about, they would assume fighting, since over 35% of the skills are related to fighting directly or indirectly. Also, it makes it easier for a player to make a character that rocks hard at those other things. Think 10 points in the 3 diplomacy skills, vs 10 points in combat skills (even if we paired down the list to a specialized melee fighter, that is still 4 skills - Athletics, Dodge, Melee, Shield - and even then he has no ranged combat).

  I know that is a lot of criticism. But I think you have a solid foundation for a good game and a decent idea of what you want out of play.
  Good luck man!

[JohnG]

Dindenver:

The way combat is meant to be in Ember is fast and deadly and the head is a quick way to die but it's also very difficult to strike.  Penalties take the form of stat or skill loss so this means that even big baddies with high stats and attributes are gonna have a tough time hitting someone in the noggin who's not penalized at all in their dodge.  Also in the combat system the defender has the opportunity to dodge and then gets to roll to resist the actual damage and there will be times when an attack does no damage or does very little.

So basically, without boosting the thresholds of the other body parts I can't boost the head.  Yes someone could end up with a subdued threshold in their head of 4 if their toughness is 2, but someone else with a toughness of 5 could end up with a subdued threshold in their torso of 20.  As you can see I can't boost too much or we end up with people aiming for the head exclusively because they can't whittle through all that torso and arm health.

Perhaps it would be best for me to make it so the numbers for damage are low?  An average attack deals 1 or 2 damage for example?  Thinking about it now, the roll vs roll = result thing could result in some seriously nasty damage to someone who has an unlucky roll.

Taking some of your ideas into play for the skill list...

Academia (Knowledge, except it covers a broad range of topics instead of requiring specialization, also brings reading/writing with it.)

Alchemy (Once required both a knowledge and a craft skill so I simplified it)

Athletics

Artisan

Deceit

Discern (This is awareness/perception, I bundled "awareness" and "Appraise" with "sense motive")

Dodge (I'm not so sure about bundling this with athletics, if my skill list is too short then people might have too many points to spend?)

Medicine

Melee

Perform

Persuasion

Ranged

Ride (Is important for combat and other difficult situations that are practically guaranteed to happen at some point.)

Seafaring (two factions exist out at sea and one has a strong naval tradition so it's likely to be relevant in many campaigns or at least be useful in travel)

Security

Shield

Stealth

Survival

Unarmed Combat

I was thinking that making specializations optional is also a good idea instead of making them mandatory.  Also this gives people something else to spend their points on and I think it's a nice way for people to customize their characters.

With the removal of Thrown and the addition of Deceit and Alchemy the list remains relatively short but strengthens academia (alchemy), larceny (deceit), and diplomatic (deceit).  Technically Mercantile too since an Alchemist could qualify for it if he's doing it for business and not for research or science.

I'm going to work out something for an option specialization system, or I may just leave things simple and keep it so melee covers the bases, perhaps adding in specializations in a player's handbook type expansion or something in the future.

I actually appreciate your post quite a bit it's been very helpful and I hope you have more for me.

Thanks,
John

[dindenver]

John,
  You can call me Dave, BTW
  Glad I could help.
  One thing that keeps popping up in your posts is the idea of the characters getting "too powerful."
  I would ask you to disabuse yourself of this notion.
  First, if all the characters can do it, than that power level becomes normal.
  Second, these characters are supposed to be protagonists if not heroes, so they should be capable.
  Finally, making your character more powerful is a great motivator for some players, but for many, "development" comes from interacting with players at the table and characters in the setting in fun and interesting ways.
  As an example, I mad a character called Soft Spot for a DC Heroes/Blood of Heroes campaign. He had medium strength offense and defense in all three power types (Physical, Mental and Spiritual). The idea was he had to learn the enemy's weaknesses and then his medium strength power became quite dangerous. I can't tell you what numbers he had or what rolls I ever made or failed with him. What I can tell you is he had an Irrational Attraction to blond women and spent a life isolated in Government super soldier training programs. So, when one of the more worldly characters introduced him to "strip bowling" with blond women, he couldn't resist. After he agreed to give it a go, the rules were explained to him. You take off all your clothes, then you bowl and if you win, she does too.
  Needless to say, hilarity ensued.

  Its a funny story, people love it and it didn't really matter if the char was min/maxed, weak, strong or whatever. the goal of roleplaying (in my mind) is to enable these sorts of fun, exciting stories, that you can re-tell, even to non-roleplayers and it gives the listener a little kick. Any part of your game that enables that, is good, any part of the game that hinders that. is bad.
  Now, in your mind (lol, mine is already pretty well made up in case you couldn't tell, lol), does setting level caps support that kind of fun or limit it? There is no wrong answer, its your game, and you need to design the kind of game you would want to play. But, I thought I would ask the question...

  Good luck on your game man.

[JohnG]

Dave,

I suppose you're correct.  I really just want to ensure balance and I think I've done that relatively well so far.  I just know how many times I've played in a game where someone knew how to twist the system just right and make an uber character who made it boring for the rest of us because he took care of everything in combat.  Though I suppose this will happen no matter what I do.  You've really given me another challenge, which is to give the GM the tools to maintain the balance.  For now though I think I've gotten character creation where I want it, and I'll trim down the numbers for damage in combat to make the thresholds a little more survivable.

Thanks,
John