Refugee from D&D Land

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hi everyone, first post here! I've been playing D&D since I was about ten years old. I like it, but it's not quite the game I want to GM, and likely never will be. I have a simulationist streak that D&D just doesn't satisfy; I don't want GURPS-level sim, but I do want hit point loss to mean something more than variations of "near hits" and "flesh wounds." Maybe a published game exists that is exactly what I want to GM, but I doubt it. I've been tinkering with my own game system for years now, but have yet to finish it. But I'm living in Korea now without my D&D paraphernalia, so I've been brainstorming more about my game. I have no intention of ever publishing a game, so this project is purely for my own satisfaction.

The Basics: My game, hereafter referred to as Awesome Adventures, or AA ('Cause who doesn't want to play a game with the same acronym as Alcoholics Anonymous? Okay, I haven't thought of a good name yet.), is similar to D&D in goal: go out into the wilderness, meet strange beings, kill stuff and then run home before their friends find you. You can use AA to run a political, mystery, horror or whatever type of campaign but I'm not as high-brow as all that. High level characters in AA are assumed to be great leaders, and will gain abilities that deal with mass combat and politics, but I haven't designed that far yet.

The Game World: Just to be all special and artistic-like, I'm using my own world and races. Let's call this world Eld. Eld is mostly an endless wilderness inhabited by faerie courts and roaming monsters. Scattered around this wilderness are pockets of civilization under the protection of god-made standing stones. Monsters and faeries can't directly attack civilizations because of the standing stones, but there are too many faeries and monsters for civilization to expand, so there is a more-or-less stable status quo. Perfect for a sandbox-type world of adventure. The races are themed after Greek gods:

Athenian (Athena): The race for high brow players.
Hadesian (Hades): The race for angsty players.
Poseidon: The race for magical & mysterious players.
Aresian (Ares): The race for tough guy players.
Artemian (Artemis): The race for hippy tree-hugger players.
Aphroditian (Aphrodite): The race for princess players.
Hephaestian (Hephaestus): The race for stoic players.

Races do not have stat mods, because they do very little to define a character but they create mental blocks for most players against interesting race/class combos. I have a couple ideas for racial abilities, but could use a lot of help here.

Task Resolution: 2d10. Hit points are mostly fixed in AA, so probabilities have to be a bit more normalized to avoid frequent spontaneous PC death. Thanks for reading, if you've gotten this far. More later.

[MacLeod]

I like the idea that the human species is split up into multiple races.
I'll need more detail on the setting before I can say much... but for now, its a solid start.

What sort of attributes, traits, talents, skills, techniques, abilities, statistics, etc... do you intend on including?
Given your D&D background, are you going the classes route?
How does magic figure in, both for the world and for PCs?

Have you seen anything about the Power 19? Answer those questions, if only for yourself. =)

[Tequila Sunrise]

I like the idea that the human species is split up into multiple races.
I'll need more detail on the setting before I can say much... but for now, its a solid start.

Honestly, that's all I have on the game world so far. There will be more in the future, but not much. I'm kinda lazy about world creation; I like to give my players a skeleton and a few ideas and let them fill in the blanks with their PCs.

What sort of attributes, traits, talents, skills, techniques, abilities, statistics, etc... do you intend on including?

Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Wit and Charisma. PC atts start at +4, +5, +5 and +5, and you get 5 points to spend on buying them up.

+5: Cost 1
+6: Cost 1
+7: Cost 1
+8: Cost 2

Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex. Other than attributes and skills there will be maneuvers/spells. Maneuvers add rider effects to your basic attack option and are powered by Stamina Points; spells do all kinds of funky stuff and are powered by Mana Points.

Given your D&D background, are you going the classes route?

Classes and levels are in. Classes are vague affairs that come in two flavors: martial and magical. Martial classes are: assassin, soldier, archer, berserker, duelist, fist-fighter. Magical classes so far: enchanter (uses Cha) and warmage (uses Wit).

How does magic figure in, both for the world and for PCs?

Magic is definately there. The only noticable differences from D&D are that you don't have to pray to some old guy in the clouds to heal people, and magical items don't come in regularly scheduled bonus-standardized packages.

Have you seen anything about the Power 19? Answer those questions, if only for yourself. =)

No, what's Power 19?

[MacLeod]

Honestly, that's all I have on the game world so far. There will be more in the future, but not much. I'm kinda lazy about world creation; I like to give my players a skeleton and a few ideas and let them fill in the blanks with their PCs.

I know what you mean. That is basically what I do as well. Too much detail and you risk cornering a campaign or failing to live up to something.

Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Wit and Charisma. PC atts start at +4, +5, +5 and +5, and you get 5 points to spend on buying them up.

Any reason that a person couldn't have a crippling Attribute?
I assume that the toughness stat is being filed under Strength? Perhaps you could broaden that up a bit... though its not really that important.
Is Wit the Attribute you would use for perception based actions?

Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex.

I liked 4e's naming conventions for Skills but I do not like the way they are handled. Comes to preferences I s'pose. You say there is going to be a Combat skill... does this cover all forms of combat (unarmed, melee, ranged, improvised, etc...)?
Do you feel that the difference between Trained vs. Untrained will be significant enough to take into consideration?

Other than attributes and skills there will be maneuvers/spells. Maneuvers add rider effects to your basic attack option and are powered by Stamina Points; spells do all kinds of funky stuff and are powered by Mana Points.

Sounds good. Nothing quite like a fantasy game where the melee guys go, "I attack" every round. Are you going Tactical route a la 4e with Maneuvers/Spells, or are they going to have different factors?

Classes and levels are in. Classes are vague affairs that come in two flavors: martial and magical. Martial classes are: assassin, soldier, archer, berserker, duelist, fist-fighter. Magical classes so far: enchanter (uses Cha) and warmage (uses Wit).

What sets the classes apart? Is it culture, role or abilities? I like to think of the distinction between class-based games like Iron Heroes and D&D 3.5e. Iron Heroes' classes are defined by how they fight while D&D's classes are defined by how they fit in a culture (well, most of them).

Magic is definitely there. The only noticeable differences from D&D are that you don't have to pray to some old guy in the clouds to heal people, and magical items don't come in regularly scheduled bonus-standardized packages.

Indeed. So does this mean you plan on having a healer class of some sort? If not based on divine faith, then what?
I've come to notice that most people hate the way D&D makes magic loot mandatory. I've always felt that magic items should be special, rare and interesting with histories.

No, what's Power 19?

I won't fill up y'r thread with it... Here is a link instead.
http://spindrift.wikidot.com/power-19

[Tequila Sunrise]

Any reason that a person couldn't have a crippling Attribute?

Mostly I kept minimum attributes at +4 to avoid min/maxers from dropping two atts to +1 to get two +8s. But also because +5 is the human baseline, so going too much below that creates adventurers of somewhat silly ineptitude.

I assume that the toughness stat is being filed under Strength? Perhaps you could broaden that up a bit... though its not really that important.
Is Wit the Attribute you would use for perception based actions?

Yeah, Strength is D&D's Str + Con and Wit is D&D's Int + Wis. I'm leaving them intentionally vague so players have a little more freedom to describe their PCs how they wish.

Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex.

I liked 4e's naming conventions for Skills but I do not like the way they are handled. Comes to preferences I s'pose. You say there is going to be a Combat skill... does this cover all forms of combat (unarmed, melee, ranged, improvised, etc...)?
Do you feel that the difference between Trained vs. Untrained will be significant enough to take into consideration? [/quote]
What don't you like about how 4e handles skills? Yes, Combat covers all styles. Specialization comes from maneuvers.

I've actually been somewhat torn about how much difference should exist between a trained and an untrained character. As it stands now, a trained PC has two more base bonuses than an untrained one, and likely two more attribute bonuses on top of that. That's a total of a 34% difference. Enough to make trained PCs feel competant while not screwing over untrained PCs...I think.

Sounds good. Nothing quite like a fantasy game where the melee guys go, "I attack" every round. Are you going Tactical route a la 4e with Maneuvers/Spells, or are they going to have different factors?

Not sure what you mean here, so I'll give a few examples. A duelist maneuver might allow the PC to move during the same action as his attack, while an assassin maneuver might allow the PC to outright kill his opponent if his attack roll succeeds by a large margin. With maneuvers, I'm going for "stuff that might happen in real fights, but hopefully more balanced than 3e." A basic enchanter's spell might apply a fear penalty to his foe, while a basic war mage spell might light a foe on fire.

What sets the classes apart? Is it culture, role or abilities? I like to think of the distinction between class-based games like Iron Heroes and D&D 3.5e. Iron Heroes' classes are defined by how they fight while D&D's classes are defined by how they fit in a culture (well, most of them).

Classes are all about how you fight. Martial classes are basically just ways to get maneuvers that fit with your favorite weapons. Ditto magical classes. You can fluff your PC's class/es however you want.

Indeed. So does this mean you plan on having a healer class of some sort? If not based on divine faith, then what?
I've come to notice that most people hate the way D&D makes magic loot mandatory. I've always felt that magic items should be special, rare and interesting with histories.

I think that healing magic will be a universal option, possibly even for martial characters. I might restrict it to an out-of-combat ritual though.

Ideally, I want magical items to be cool and interesting but not necessary. So no basic pluses to attack, damage, defense or DR.

[MacLeod]

Mostly I kept minimum attributes at +4 to avoid min/maxers from dropping two atts to +1 to get two +8s. But also because +5 is the human baseline, so going too much below that creates adventurers of somewhat silly ineptitude.

Seems like a pretty high baseline, is there a reason that having +1/+2/+2/+2 wouldn't work? (I'm not trying to pull you down or anything, just trying to figure things out ^_^).

What don't you like about how 4e handles skills? Yes, Combat covers all styles. Specialization comes from maneuvers.

I hated that the difference was simply +5 or +0. Well, I guess in truth that isn't really a bad idea... I just think it may have made more sense if it was Trained=+1/Lv Untrained=+.5/Lv. I think that handling skill points is a hassle so this would be better than nothin'. I think if a flat modifier is going to be applied to skills, it should be based on Race and then some broad choices based on Class.

Not sure what you mean here

I'm referring to the miniature focused sort of tactical gameplay that 4e has. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't for everyone either. I also makes this reference to the way that 4e makes magic feel so mundane instead of like a different game mechanic. I'm often torn between balance and making magic actually cool in my own homebrew... Some days I want to make it a dark, dangerous art that if not used carefully can cause all sorts of mishaps.

Classes are all about how you fight. Martial classes are basically just ways to get maneuvers that fit with your favorite weapons. Ditto magical classes. You can fluff your PC's class/es however you want.

Is this purely a fluff related affair, or will you have game mechanics to support this? For instance, if I wanted to create an assassin who is a survivalist, outdoor guide and general ranger-ish sort of guy, could I do this fairly easily without too many compromises? One of my goals for my own game is to separate the non-combat bits and combat bits of the well-known archetypes for mixing purposes.

I think that healing magic will be a universal option, possibly even for martial characters. I might restrict it to an out-of-combat ritual though.
Ideally, I want magical items to be cool and interesting but not necessary. So no basic pluses to attack, damage, defense or DR.

I can agree with these ideas, they are all pretty solid. =)

[David C]

I do want hit point loss to mean something more than variations of "near hits" and "flesh wounds."

Hitpoints are popular because it basically prevents "Spontaneous player death."  Also, in the traditional treadmill rpg design, they're needed to keep up with escalating damage and lethality.  There's two solutions that I can think of.

1) Remove the numbers from "damage."  Have hits be "effects" instead, rolled on a table.  Have things like "just a scratch", "your arm is broken", "your lung is punctured."

2) For Heroic Fantasy, have "perfect defenses."  IE you defend 100% of the time.  But incorporate a fatigue mechanic.  Every time you defend, it's tiring.  A creature like a dragon that's harder to dodge, costs more fatigue to defend against. (Then, for added realism, as you hit 75%, 50%, 25% fatigue, increase the chances of getting hit, all the way to "always getting hit.") It ultimately serves the same purpose of HP, but satisfies a Simulationist's thirst for realism. Btw, if you can answer, what's the appeal to realism anyways? 

[whiteknife]

The setting looks cool.

Also, David C's idea about 'perfect defenses' is indeed a good alternative to hit points. I've used a couple system that have a system like this and they work great.

[MacLeod]

1) Remove the numbers from "damage."  Have hits be "effects" instead, rolled on a table.  Have things like "just a scratch", "your arm is broken", "your lung is punctured."

Problem with this solution is that it isn't conducive to fast play. If he is intending on building the sort of game with in-depth Maneuvers and what-not, there is already quite a bit of stuff to keep track of.
I do think that this idea has merit though. Think of how WFRP operates... 0 Hp doesn't mean death, instead each blow from then on is a Critical Hit that can destroy the victim's body. While you'll need charts, you won't need them for the entire experience.
One idea I have been toying around with lately in my own homebrews is the idea of having a buffer between physical damage called something akin to luck/fate/passion/determination/whatever. This buffer would restore automatically after a fight (maybe even between rounds) unless the character was shaken to his very core by some sort of trauma that left his passion for life wanting.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Seems like a pretty high baseline, is there a reason that having +1/+2/+2/+2 wouldn't work? (I'm not trying to pull you down or anything, just trying to figure things out ^_^).

Mostly because +5 as the baseline satisfies my sense of simmed reality. If the human baseline is +1 or +2, that doesn't leave much room for creatures of exceptionally low scores like animals and such.

I hated that the difference was simply +5 or +0. Well, I guess in truth that isn't really a bad idea... I just think it may have made more sense if it was Trained=+1/Lv Untrained=+.5/Lv. I think that handling skill points is a hassle so this would be better than nothin'. I think if a flat modifier is going to be applied to skills, it should be based on Race and then some broad choices based on Class.
I originally intended to make the rule "untrained skills equal 1/2 your level, until you hit third level at which point they become your level -2" but it seems like a lot of language for just two levels.

I'm referring to the miniature focused sort of tactical gameplay that 4e has. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't for everyone either. I also makes this reference to the way that 4e makes magic feel so mundane instead of like a different game mechanic. I'm often torn between balance and making magic actually cool in my own homebrew... Some days I want to make it a dark, dangerous art that if not used carefully can cause all sorts of mishaps.

Hm, I'm not going out of my way to make the game tactics-focused but it will probably end up at least somewhat that way. You know, I've never played a game where magic felt really different from D&D's magic. So when people say magic is mundane, I don't have a frame of reference for anything else. Can you give an example of magical magic?

Is this purely a fluff related affair, or will you have game mechanics to support this? For instance, if I wanted to create an assassin who is a survivalist, outdoor guide and general ranger-ish sort of guy, could I do this fairly easily without too many compromises? One of my goals for my own game is to separate the non-combat bits and combat bits of the well-known archetypes for mixing purposes.

You can totally make a ranger PC. The only two skills restricted to certain classes are Combat and Magic, so you're free to be trained in any other skill regardless of class. You can also freely multiclass between any class, so you could have a few Archer maneuvers in addition to your sneaky shtick.

[Tequila Sunrise]

2) For Heroic Fantasy, have "perfect defenses."  IE you defend 100% of the time.  But incorporate a fatigue mechanic.  Every time you defend, it's tiring.  A creature like a dragon that's harder to dodge, costs more fatigue to defend against. (Then, for added realism, as you hit 75%, 50%, 25% fatigue, increase the chances of getting hit, all the way to "always getting hit.") It ultimately serves the same purpose of HP, but satisfies a Simulationist's thirst for realism. Btw, if you can answer, what's the appeal to realism anyways? 

My current goal is something like this, actually. PCs have hit points and stamina points. SP are used to power maneuvers, but after you use a bunch of them you start taking penalties. If you hit zero SP you lose conciousness. Lose a bunch of HP and you start bleeding to death.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Am I not seeing a button, or can we not edit posts? Anyway, the appeal of realism for me at least is to help suspension of disbelief. I hate to use a video game analogy, because I love Diablo and WoW, but when I play a true rpg I don't want to feel like I'm playing a video game.

[MacLeod]

Yeah... for some reason editing has been turned off for the time being. It is sort of annoying. @_@

I originally intended to make the rule "untrained skills equal 1/2 your level, until you hit third level at which point they become your level -2" but it seems like a lot of language for just two levels.

As a throwaway opinion, I'd recommend just sticking with the 1/2 Level. Still makes the Skill usable but they'll miss the expertise of the full bonus. I think another thing that could help is Trained also unlocks special options for that character when using that Skill.

You know, I've never played a game where magic felt really different from D&D's magic. So when people say magic is mundane, I don't have a frame of reference for anything else. Can you give an example of magical magic?

I think pre-4e D&D magic is lot less mundane feeling simply because it runs on a different system than Feats do. In addition to that, I liked Metamagic feats... a nice way to personalize your magic use even though I didn't like the way it was handled mechanically.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has a pretty hardcore magic. I enjoyed the apprehension brought on by the chance of Tzeentch's Curse, especially wondering if you are going to accidentally summon a horde of demons. =D

You can totally make a ranger PC. The only two skills restricted to certain classes are Combat and Magic, so you're free to be trained in any other skill regardless of class. You can also freely multiclass between any class, so you could have a few Archer maneuvers in addition to your sneaky shtick.

I think this a pretty positive quality. =D

[Tequila Sunrise]

You've changed my mind. Untrained skills will be 1/2 level, until 8th level. At 9th level, when PCs become legendary, the untrained bonus becomes level -4. (Well, okay, you mostly changed my mind.) While we're talking about levels:

Apprentice: 1-2
Journeyman: 3-4
Master: 5-6
Grand Master: 7-8
Legendary: 9-10
11+ (haven't planned this far yet, maybe a continuation of legendary, or maybe something more)

[MacLeod]

If you are looking for more naming conventions... insert Novice before Apprentice and Elite before Master.

What exactly separates the different Titles/Ranks? Access to abilities, a la 4e?