Eclipse RPG

[Ben O'Neal]

Eclipse

Now that i have been here a while, and gotten a bit of a feel for "how things are done", i've decided to present my system mechanics in a more practical and accessible way.

Ok, so Eclipse is loosely based on the d20 system (immediately 90% of audience leaves), in that it uses a d20 as the main die, and has skills and attributes and abilities (feats). practically every roll will come down to either a skill roll, a direct attribute roll, or a combat roll (see the combat sections below). no base attack or base saves. your character improves by distributing a number of attribute points determined by their class and learning skills (see "learning skills"). logistically, its possible for a level 20 character to have an attribute modifier as high as +40 (raw score of 100), but in reality its likely most level 20 characters will have two or three attributes with modifers around +22 and the rest of their attributes as low as when they were level 1. most level one characters will have a few attributes with negative modifiers, and a few with positive modifiers (averages between -3 and +3)

8 Attributes:
Power=Raw physical strength
Constitution=fortitude and life force
Speed=small quick movements (single limb)
Agility=large movements (whole body)
Crystal=memory, learning capacity
Fluid=logic and analysis, quick thinking
Beauty=physical beauty and inner beauty, overall attractiveness
Influence=force of will and character, luck (see "luck" below)

Melee Combat
there are only three things really important for melee combat: AC, Power and Speed.
AC is the hardness of your body+your armor. not "how hard you are to hit", more like "how hard it is to push a sword through you". a medium sized character's base AC is 10, and this increases/decreases according to size. in combat, a character is likely to have an AC that is equal to their Base AC plus the AC of their armor. this is opposed against any power checks. an total AC of 30 means an opponent needs to roll a Power of at least 30 to deal any damage at all.
Power is rolled as d20 +your characters Power mod +the Power mod of your weapon.
Speed is rolled as d20 +your characters Speed mod +the Speed mod of your weapon.
all melee weapons are given with this convention WeaponName(+/-X, +/-Y), where X=the Speed bonus and Y=the Power bonus. for example, a long sword is written as LongSword(-3, +5), meaning it is slower to swing a longsword than it is to throw a punch, and your hits are more powerful with a longsword than they are with a punch. a Quarterstaff(+4, +2) means you are much faster at reacting with a quarterstaff than unarmed (especially due to its duel ends) and you can hit someone harder with a quarterstaff than unarmed, but not as hard as a longsword (plus a longsword has an edge). a Rapier(+4, -2) is even faster to move than a quarterstaff, but it has only one end, so they even out, but its harder to put your weight behind a rapier than it is with a punch so it has a negative bonus to Power, but a rapier deals piercing damage, a quarterstaff deals bludgeoning.

combat might typically resolve thus: both opponents roll Speed. whoever rolls higher subtracts the opponents roll from their own and this gives the difference in Speed. a difference of 0 means both players have locked weapons and they roll power to win the weapon lock. a difference between 1 and 7 means the defending character managed to get their weapon up to block (more on this later). a difference between 8 and 11 means the defending character was too slow, and the offensive character can simply strike at them by rolling power. any difference greater than 12 allows the offensive opponent to choose to disarm the defending opponent (no damage dealt though).

this is all laid out on a small table, so it takes like one roll each (both rolled at the same time) a simple subtraction and a glance at a table.

ok, so if you are faster than your opponent, fast enough to strike them before they can block, you roll power, subtract their AC, and compare the result to a second table, which tells you how much you need to beat their AC by to deal different types of damage. damage is dealt to wherever the player chooses to attack initially.

if they manage to block, then their AC increases by their Power mod and the Power mod of their weapon. the logic behind this is that stronger characters are better at deflecting weapons and bigger and tougher weapons are better at defending too.

two rolls, two possible ACs depending on the Speed outcomes.

there are tons more options, such as dodging (with degrees of failure and success laid out in a simple table) and various other manoeuvres gained through class based abilities or general abilities.

Ranged Combat
ranged combat is more simple. it requires an Accuracy roll and the targets AC. Accuracy is d20 +Power mod +Agility mod +weapon mod. ranged weapons have an accuracy modifier that either increases or decreases your basic accuracy (throwing axes are less accurate than longbows). player rolls accuracy, GM looks at table to determine the difficulty of the shot within range increments and movement of target, adds the targets AC, and if the Accuracy check is higher, checks the damage table to see what damage is dealt.

Magic/Psionic Combat
magic/Psionic combat is a little more interesting. if a spellcaster/Psionic is facing normal opponents, they must either choose to engage them in melee or cast spells/use abilities from range, and there is really no chance for the spells/abilities to fail. but when oppossing another spellcaster/psionic, they duel. each opponent declares if they are going to cast or counter. if both cast, then both simply cast. if both counter, then they both do nothing that action. but if one casts and the other counters, they both roll spellcraft checks (Psi checks for Psionics)  to try to get their spell off/counter the opponents spell. whoever wins the roll gets what they want.

also, all spells and abilities have a cost. this cost is used from the characters pool (be it spell points or Psi capacity), and also carries with it an additional cost of subdual damage. this subdual damage ignores AC and any other resistances against subdual damage, and can only be reduced/prevented with a constitution check, by subtracting this check from the subdual damage dealt. any left-over subdual damage is taken by the character. thus spellcasters and psionics must use their power wisely and ensure they can deal with the cost of using their abiltiies or risk falling unconscious.

magic and psionics are a bit more complex than this but i'm trying to be brief.

Learning Skills
skills are rolled as d20 +skill ranks +relevant attribute modifier, and are usually rolled against an opposing roll, though many skills roll against a static DC. the default threshold for learning skills is 3. this means that if you roll either 3 higher or 3 lower than the target number (DC or opposed roll), you learn one rank in that skill. this allows for characters to learn from mistakes and successes, and prevents them from learning from tasks too difficult for them to understand or too easy to be of use. certain classes (such as thieves) may have higher thresholds, like 4 or 5, and so learning skills is easier for them. characters can also pay for professional training to help them learn, by raising the threshold by 1 for every 10gp paid per try (or whatever).

Luck
characters with high influence scores not only find it easier to persuade other people, but also find that the world in general seems to react differently to them. i picture a characters' influence as kind of like a ripple in a pond, the more influence they have the more of a difference they can make. this breaks down mechanic-wise into 4 levels of luck, reached by raising influence progressively higher. level 1 luck can be used 4 times per day, and allows the player to re-roll any roll they make, and use the better of the two OR take a simple 50/50 chance of total success or total failure at using a skill check regardless of their skill or the difficulty of the task. level 2 luck can be used 3 times per day, and allows the player to alter any unknown value to their desire by a factor of 2 or 0.5. for example, if you fight an opponent with a longsword and a pouch, you can't make his longsword a rapier (it's already a known value) but you can make his pouch have either half the gold it would have had, or twice the gold (factors of 0.5 and 2 respectively). this could also work for the number of enemies on the other side of a door, or anything else they think of. level 3 luck can be used twice per day, and lets the player take total success regardless of the difficulty of the task (doesn't work for combat), or player can make another target creature or player fail/succeed at any task regardless of difficulty or skill. level 4 luck can be used once per day, and allows the player to totally fluke out and succeed at any one thing they try, no limitations, or they can choose to avoid any one lot of damage from any one source, and they can make these decisions retroactively up to one minute in the past per character level.

Setting
the setting for Eclipse is a world of my own creation, with many different cultures, with varying technological prowess. the main culture is The Kingdom, where magicians all belong to a highly organised and powerful organisation called The Academy, who are somewhat seperate from the Kingdom, but are also favourable towards them. there are 4 thieves guilds, each with their own claimed towns and cities, who do not look kindly on rogue thieves moving in on their territory. there are officially 7 religious orders, who spend a good deal of effort trying to manipulate and control events for their own design by using clerics as spies. there is one unofficial order who follow the nameless god of chaos, and they are the "big baddies" who attempt to bring destruction from the shadows. the era would be around the middle ages, though some cultures have developed gunpowder and others are yet to figure out how to work steel. in some cultures magic users are less-than-human and are slaves to be bought and used like tools, and in other cultures they are no more than loosely associated practitioners. orcs and serpent-people are the dominant species on the planet, with the serpent-people using the orcs as their armies. there's obviously tons more to the setting, but i think that's a passable overview.

Questions
Is there anything wrong with my skill learning mechanic? is 3 too large or too small as a base threshold? should characters learn more ranks for succeeding? or failing? or the same for both?

Is it fair to make Psionics and Spellcasters have to deal with subdual damage as a system of fatigue? should the risk for subdual damage be high? or low? i currently have spellcasters with a lower risk of subdual damage because their effort is in simply controlling and manipulating the weave of magic that is already there, whereas Psionics are generating a kind of magic weave with the power of their mind and their influence in the world. this leaves spellcasters as more powerful than psionics, but far rarer (everyone can become a psionic if they want). should i change this at all? is it ok to have an "imbalance" if it works with the world and ideals of the system?

right now there is a tradeoff between speed and power in melee combat, and stronger characters not only deal more damage, but are also harder to damage, while faster characters are harder to hit and more likely to hold the upper hand in a duel. i like this balance, and it achieves the sort of gritty "realistic" model of combat i wanted to achieve. but does anyone here think it needs more? or less? if so, how?

is there any more information that i should give to make objective appraisal of my mechanics easier to understand or give them a frame of reference?

any other comments/criticisms/questions?

[Darksmith]

There seems to be alot of dice rolling in your combat system. Each player has to toll once for Speed and then once for Power. Have you thought about rolling once and applying both modifiers to the same die Roll? This way everything happens at once and if you happen to equal Speed for a weapon lock then you already know how it will turn out with the Power rating.

The skill learning mechanic seem okay, but I wouldn't modify it per class. I would make it consistant for everyone and the only time it would be modified is if there was a trainer/teacher availible.

I'm not sure about the Luck mechanic. It has the potential of reshaping the reality of the game world a little too much for my taste. I've always seen luck as a way to effect the Character himself, not people around him. It's like giving anyone the PC comes up against Bad Luck twice a day. If I was playing in the system I would max out my influence first thing, becuase the way it's set up now it's definatly better to be lucky than good. That's just my opinion though.

[Ben O'Neal]

Thanks for your post!

There seems to be alot of dice rolling in your combat system. Each player has to toll once for Speed and then once for Power. Have you thought about rolling once and applying both modifiers to the same die Roll? This way everything happens at once and if you happen to equal Speed for a weapon lock then you already know how it will turn out with the Power rating.

Alot of rolling? one speed roll, then the winner rolls power. that's no more than a basic 'attack roll, damage roll'.

i had considered using the one roll and then just using either your speed or power mod, but i dunno. perhaps this could be an optional rule. i've never been much of a swordsman, so do you think maybe the speed of an attack is directly related to the power of that attack? if so, one roll would be perfect. but if you can realistically swing fast and weak, or slow and strong, then i think two rolls would capture that reality more. if anyone knows anything about this just let me know and i'll happily change it to more accurately capture the reality of attacking.

The skill learning mechanic seem okay, but I wouldn't modify it per class

hmmm. i see the logic behind making skills just as easy to learn for all classes, but then how would i differentiate thieves as a skill based class? without that advantage, they only have poisons and explosives, which are all well and good, but their skills are more handy more often. i dunno though, i'll have to think about this. maybe if i made it an ability(feat) that can be taken?

I'm not sure about the Luck mechanic. It has the potential of reshaping the reality of the game world a little too much for my taste. I've always seen luck as a way to effect the Character himself, not people around him. It's like giving anyone the PC comes up against Bad Luck twice a day. If I was playing in the system I would max out my influence first thing, becuase the way it's set up now it's definatly better to be lucky than good. That's just my opinion though.

well, maxing out your influence would require you to be at least level 18, considering you can only reach level 4 luck by having an influence of 100, and you start with around 10, and you can only gain a maximum of 5 attribute points per level. so while you were levelling up, you'd prolly die real quick because you abandoned all your other attributes. in the game, there are magic items and various other ways to increase your attribute points, so it is possible, but rather hard, to reach level 4 luck. to reach level 3 you need an influence of 73, to reach level 2 you need 43, and to reach level 1 you need 20. so after all the effort required to reach those levels of luck, i think the player deserves some real power!

i designed the system with the goal to have incentive to keep playing even after you've reached level 20, by having things such as luck, incredibly powerful monsters (like angels), and magic items which allow you to improve your character without relying on levels. otherwise, realistically the only classes that have influence as an attribute useful to the class (and thus worth increasing) are psionics and clerics. an unless they neglect all the other important attributes for their class, they will realistically only reach level 2 luck, maybe level 3 if they push it.

but i really like the idea of players being able to influence and change more than just their character. if anyone has read the wheel of time, i'm thinking along the lines of ta'veren, but with more focus.

[greyorm]

I like the Luck mechanic, very interesting, and the idea certainly fits with a number of other games developed here on the Forge which provide varying degrees of player empowerment. For example, Donjon (by our very own Clinton R. Nixon) uses a system that allows the player to turn successful rolls into facts about the world.

I can't really comment on the rest of the system, because it isn't my thing...or doesn't seem to be, since I'm looking at what appears to be D&D with mods. So, with that in mind, Ravien, could you tell me why I would want to play your game rather than just going with straight d20 / D&D? That is, what's your purpose in designing this game, and how do the mechanics support that?

Is there anything wrong with my skill learning mechanic? is 3 too large or too small as a base threshold? should characters learn more ranks for succeeding? or failing? or the same for both?

Without playing, I can't say. 3 seems a little low to me, but that all depends on how quickly you view advancement occuring. That brings up the question of how skill advancement integrates with the whole level system -- does level have any reflection on skill levels?

Is it fair to make Psionics and Spellcasters have to deal with subdual damage as a system of fatigue? should the risk for subdual damage be high? or low?

The answer to both question all depends on your design goals, and what you mean by "fair"?

is it ok to have an "imbalance" if it works with the world and ideals of the system?

Sure...but that depends on the focus of the game and the way it is played. Is it more gamist? More sim-focused? Is mechanical effectiveness a concern regarding rewards? Given that it is modified D&D, I'd say that imbalance does not work, because of the way D&D is set up and functions.

i like this balance, and it achieves the sort of gritty "realistic" model of combat i wanted to achieve. but does anyone here think it needs more? or less? if so, how?

To tell you the truth, I'm a little unclear on how, exactly, combat works itself out. Can you give a more comprehensive example (or two)? Thanks!

[Ben O'Neal]

So, with that in mind, Ravien, could you tell me why I would want to play your game rather than just going with straight d20 / D&D?

without knowing everything about you? probably not. but i can tell you why i prefer my system over D&D, and why my friends do too. because for starters, D&D is too abstract and restrictive. you have basically only two or three choices about how the stats of your character develop, in feats, skills, and maybe spells. other than that, your character really is predefined by your class and level. secondly, you have very little power over combat besides choosing what action to do and praying it hits. for example, you can't say "i kick this guy in the nuts" and have things work like you'd expect (unless the DM overules the core system, which seems to happen alot). also, when you reach higher levels, you can pretty much do whatever you want with almost no fear of dying. essentially, D&D is too "gamey" for me, and i often find my plans and tactics end up being no more effective than if i'd just ran in there and swung my weapon about like a toon. so i developed my own system, ignorant of the fact that many other people also do the same thing. then i came here at the suggestion of a friend, and was pointed to TROS. i read the quickstart, and to be honest, the goals of TROS are basically the exact same goals that i had, but his system is far too complex for my liking, and doesn't allow for a bunch of things i wanted to implement. so i don't feel like my efforts were a waste of time. if you look at the details of my system, the similarities with D&D almost dissapear. this might become clearer when i give an example of how combat might play out.

Without playing, I can't say. 3 seems a little low to me, but that all depends on how quickly you view advancement occuring. That brings up the question of how skill advancement integrates with the whole level system -- does level have any reflection on skill levels?

does level reflect skills? no. you decide how good you are with skills by using them and training them. level is only used as a way to measure your experience in the world (like for the purposes of comparison to other people), and to moderate when your character gets attribute points to distribute and some other class-based benefits. and the threshold is 3, which means 3 above and 3 below, so all in all, if you roll within 6 of the target you gain a rank. advancement can occur as fast as players want. if they want to spend all their gold and train a skill every day for a month, then they can raise their skill as high as they want.

Sure...but that depends on the focus of the game and the way it is played. Is it more gamist? More sim-focused? Is mechanical effectiveness a concern regarding rewards? Given that it is modified D&D, I'd say that imbalance does not work, because of the way D&D is set up and functions

no, it doesn't work as D&D, but it isn't D&D. it's far more sim-focused than D&D, yet not quite so sim-focused as TROS. the focus of the game and the way it is played reflects novels. balance between characters isn't really an issue because they are all part of their world, not lone adventurers in it. spellcasters belong to the academy, and they don't look kindly on their members running around setting fire to everything or razing cities with undead armies. clerics belong to their orders and their orders decide what they do (not how they do it or if they do anything else as well). thieves belong to guilds with strict codes. fighters will be hunted by bigger and better fighters if they muck up, or patrols of guards. the adventures are focused more on the characters interacting with the world, and finding their place in it, than on collecting treasure from ancient ruins or commiting genocide. it's actually remarkably easy to keep characters in line when they realise they can be killed with one wrong step, and negotiation skills and tactics play a big part in staying alive. rewards are about 50/50 mechanical effectiveness and roleplaying.

my design goals? a system with deadly duels, that are played out action by action, where every attack meets a defence or counter-attack, for melee and arcane combat (i can't imagine how a duel might work with ranged combat...). a system that forces players to think carefully not only about what they are going to do, but how they are going to do it. a system that accomodates things like magnetic fields, realistic lightning, and undead that just won't die (they regenerate and can move severed limbs). and a system where taking a rapier to the stomach didn't just reduce hit points, but carried penalties for your attributes, by making you slower and weaker, and an arrow to the head will kill anyone. this all sounds like a pile of marketing (as in, "watch out! don't step in that marketing!"), but this is what i was thinking when i designed it. but most of all, i wanted it to be easily accessible, understandable, and simple and fast to play.

To tell you the truth, I'm a little unclear on how, exactly, combat works itself out. Can you give a more comprehensive
example (or two)? Thanks!

sure! first i'll give an example of a melee duel between two average level fighters, and i'm actually using dice to generate the combat. i'll only give the important stats for each of them, and both have longswords (-3Spe, +5Pow) and leather armor (AC=4, no dex penalty):

Fighter A (bob) Stats:
Pow: 24 (+12)
Con: 18 (+8)
Spd: 26 (+13)
Agi: 16 (+6)

Total AC: 15 (Base AC=11, +4 for leather armor)
number of actions per round: 5 (1 per 8Pow, 1 per 10Spe)

Total weapon Pow: +17 (+12 from Pow score, +5 from weapon)
Total weapon Spe: +10 (+13 from Spe score, -3 from weapon)

Figher B (dave) Stats:
Pow: 30 (+15)
Con: 25 (+12)
Spd: 20 (+10)
Agi: 9 (-1)

Total AC: 17 (Base AC=13, +4 for leather armor)
actions per round: 5 (1 per 8Pow, 1 per 10Spe)

Total weapon Pow: +20 (+15 from Pow score, +5 from weapon)
Total weapon Spe: +7 (+10 from Spe score, -3 from weapon)

Duel

Round 1: Action 1 both fighters engage each other at the same time, bob is a bit more cautious though, and decides to attempt to defend himself first, rather than risk both killing each other. so dave rolls and gets 8, adds his weapons speed (+7) for a total of 15. at the same time, bob rolls and gets 13, adds his weapons speed (+10) for a total of 23. 23 is only 8 higher than 15, so if bob and dave both attacked (instead of bob choosing to defend), then both would have killed each other (explained in a degrees of success table for 'hammering' where both opponents attempt to attack without defending). but as it stands, bobs 23 is 8 higher than daves 15, so bob gains the upper hand, forcing dave to defend next action.

Round 1: Action 2 bob rolls an 11, for a total of 21, and dave rolls a 10, for a total of 17. bobs 21 is only 4 higher than daves 17, so dave manages to block with his sword. dave adds his total weapon power (including his personal power mod) to his AC of 17, giving him a total AC of 37. bobs roll was only 11, so his total power is only 28. not enough to make a dent, but he still has the upper hand.

Round 1: Action 3 again bob rolls and gets 19, for a total speed of 29, and dave rolls a 6, for a total speed of 15. this time bobs speed was over 12 higher than daves, so he can either choose to disarm dave, or attempt to damage him. dave wasn't fast enough to block, so his AC is only 17. bobs roll was 19, so adding his weapons power gives a total of 36, more than enough to deal an instantly fatal wound to dave. so bobs sword punctures right through daves heart up to the hilt, and he watches as the life fades from daves eyes and the blood drains from his face.

all this has happened in the space of about 4 seconds, and bob still has 2 actions left that round (one round = 6 seconds), which he could use to move to another opponent if there are any left and engage them. if dave had less actions than bob, then he would run out and bob would gain 'free' actions against him with dave unable to defend, simply because bob was too fast for him. but as it turned out, not even having the same number of actions helped him stay alive for even one round. both fighters were around level 7.

also, you might notice that i only used one roll for each fighter, and simply used either speed or power to modifer that one roll. this was inspired by darksmith's post, and the more i think about it the more i like it. so one roll per action it is!

ok, so that was melee combat. i hope it made sense and wasn't too confusing, as it's actually much easier to understand and explain with a demonstration.

but here is an example of a duel between two spellcasters, again, both are level 7 and both have a similar selection of spells. but for the sake of simplicity, i will only deal with two spells; magic missile (invisible balls of force that smash targets sending them flying and dealing subdual damage, costs 1 per ball to cast), and shockwave (a ring of electricity that burns through creatures, costs 6 per 10ft radius). neither of these spells are the most powerful the casters have, but they are the simplest to describe concisely. both mages have masterwork katanas (+0Spe, +8Pow) and no armor.

Mage A (mary) Stats:
Pow: 14 (+4)
Con: 22 (+11)
Spe: 15 (+5)
Cry: 24 (+12)
Flu: 26 (+13)

Total Spell Pool: 13 (half Cry mod + half Flu mod, rounded up)
Total AC: 12 (Base AC=12)
actions per round: 2 (1 per 10Pow, 1 per 10Spe)

Total weapon Pow: +12 (+4 from Pow score, +8 from weapon)
Total weapon Spe: +5 (+5 from Spe score, +0 from weapon)
Spellcraft skill: 31 (18 ranks, +13 from Flu score)

Mage B (jane) Stats:
Pow: 10 (+0)
Con: 30 (+15)
Spe: 11 (+1)
Cry: 20 (+10)
Flu: 28 (+14)

Total Spell Pool: 12 (half Cry mod + half Flu mod, rounded up)
Total AC: 14 (Base AC=14)
actions per round: 2 (1 per 10Pow, 1 per 10Spe)

Total weapon Pow: +8 (+0 from Pow score, +8 from weapon)
Total weapon Spe: +1 (+1 from Spe score, +0 from weapon)
Spellcraft skill: 34 (20 ranks, +14 from Flu score)

Duel

Round 1: Action 1 both casters stand about 60ft apart with swords drawn, each able to 'feel' the power of the other, and they both know that this could be a deadly duel. mary decides to attack, by casting magic missile, in the hope of knocking jane out or at least putting some real distance between them. she tries to cast, and jane senses this and decides to counter. both make a spellcraft check. mary rolls 7 for a total of 38, jane rolls 18 for a total of 52. as mary tries to weave the spell, she feels jane tear apart her weaves and the spell fails.

Round 1: Action 2 mary runs towards jane, hoping to best her in melee, but as she runs, she feels jane begin to cast, so she stops and tries to counter. both roll spellcraft again, and mary rolls 6, for a total of 37, and jane rolls 3, for a total of 37 (yes i actually rolled those legitimately). both casters stand there, staring intently at each other while they each struggle for control over the weave.

Round 2: Action 1 the distance between the two mages has closed to 30ft thanks to mary's running. again both roll spellcraft, and this time mary rolls 14, for a total of 45, and jane rolls 6, for a total of 34. mary bests jane, and jane feels her spell weave torn apart, and the spell fails. she stands with sword ready, watching to see what mary will do next.

Round 2: Action 2 mary begins walking towards jane, trying to close the distance so she can cast shockwave. jane too, decides to walk towards mary, in order to cast shockwave.

Round 3: Action 1 they are now standing but 10ft apart, and both wait to see if the other will cast. suddenly, jane feels mary begin to weave, and she tries to counter. mary rolls 3, for a total of 34, and jane rolls 16, for a total of 50. mary's weave is shredded and the spell fails. she raises her katana and prepares herself for whatever jane might do next.

Round 3: Action 2 jane is becoming tense, and wants to end this now. she begins casting shockwave. mary counters, knowing that if she doesn't she will die. she rolls 6, for a total of 37, and jane rolls 16, for a total of 50. jane decides to make the shockwave have a radius of 20ft to ensure that mary cannot avoid it, and so must use up 12 points from her spell pool. this threatens to deal 48 points of subdual damage to her (four times the cost), so she makes a constitution check to reduce or avoid that subdual damage. she rolls 7, adds her constitution modifier for a total of 22, which reduces the subdual damage to 26 points. she can only sustain an amount of subdual damage equal to her constitution score, which is 30, and if she comes within 5 of that, she becomes dazed. so jane is now dazed, and suffers a penalty of -4 to all rolls. but this doesn't matter, because the shockwave dealt 3 (result of a 1d4) moderate burn wounds to mary, which was one more than she could handle and remain alive, so jane drearily looks down at mary's burnt and mangled twitching body.

well that was alot more exciting than i was imagining possible with only two spells, and lasted longer than i thought too, a full 3 rounds. but there you go, a fine example of arcane duelling. if jane were to encounter another opponent right about now, she'd have serious problems with her -4 penalty and all.

at any time during the duel either mage could have resorted to melee combat, but doing so would leave them defenseless against the spell of the opponent, which is obviously not a good position to be in. also, only spellcasters can counter spells, which means that a spellcaster is a veritable war machine against non-spellcasters. of course, this also means that any of her friends that are standing too close can also become the victim of her spells.

sorry all that took so long, but i hope that gives a good idea about how combat is resolved and plays out. i also hope that might show how different my system is from D&D. if it doesn't, then maybe i just think it's different because i know the whole thing inside out, and maybe i'm only highlighting the differences, of which there are many, but ignoring the similarities, of which i don't know how many there could be because of my biased view.

[greyorm]

Thanks for posting that, Ravien! I'm going to mull that over a bit, along with your initial post, and see if I can get a grasp of the way it works (my quick read-through is just not clarifying it for me).

[Ben O'Neal]

well, hopefully the combat examples i gave weren't too confusing... they seem simple enough to me. but then again, i made the system!

so anyways i am making progress on my pdf. i'm up to about 50 pages now, and i have to say that typing up spell lists is a real huge job. i've done all the character creation part, all the psionic powers, weapons, armor (not general equipment yet though), and all that stuff. big job. more typing in this one pdf than i've done in all my years at uni.

one of the things i may need help with though, is my playable species. of the many creatures that live in my setting, only five are playable. i was wondering if this is enough, or are people likely to want more than five. to help put some context to that question, here is a very simplified rundown of the five species i have so far:

human. duh! always a human. many cultures, kingdoms, blah blah blah

humans gain experience at 110% the normal rate, get more skill points at char creation, and get more abilities as they level. exciting huh.

elyrial (el-EYE-ree-AHL): elyrials are descendants of teh ancient druids, who are magical creatures that are the guardians of nature (very powerful). when humans first began spreading, a small group of druids (typical teenagers!) were inspired to question devoting their life to the cause of nature, when these humans were doing so well by using nature. so they left the druids and tried to emulate the humans, and compete with them. being the druids that they were though, when they abandoned nature they began losing the powers that nature granted them. they lost their abilities to shapeshift, control the weather and other animals, meld with the elements, and many other powers, and they lost their immortality. but proud and stubborn, they continued to try to forge their own path. unfortunately, their breeding cycle was too long, and the humans grew too fast. so in the end, they tried to compromise, by living at one with nature, but still being their own speciies with their own destinies. humans and elyrials live seperately, but each reveres the other for their accomplishments so it is a mutually beneficial relationship. the humans often call the elyrials "elves" because it is easier to say.

they have retained some aspects of their druidic heritage, namely their cat-like ears and tails, ability to camouflage their skin and hair and fur (like a cameleon), they never take falling damage (unless they are unconscious), and have bonuses their sneak and hide and listen skills. because of their longevity and the nature of their beings, they gain experience at 90% the normal rate.

keresai (keh-reh-SEYE): keresin are even more ancient than the elyrials, though their ancestor species is not as ancient as the druids. both the keresin and the sargni are descendant from the same ancestor, who is now all but forgotten. they were the first species to exhibit the ability to weave magic, and very quickly began selective breeding to create their ideal "pure" species. this fact, and the fact that the keresin have incredibly stunted emotional capacity led the the sargni to war with them, and both species have hated each other for as long as they can remember. the keresin have very little creativity or emotional drives beyond some base emotions like hate, fear, and curiosity. their minds are alien to the other species, because they do not know the meaning of pleasure or humor, and they are always curious and trying to learn things, but without much restraint on how they go about things (like guilt or empathy). they use the ka'tarrh as slaves because they can and they see themselves as superior to them, and live in densely populated centres, where no keresai goes without because of the fact that they have so many slaves to do everything for them. they breed according to seasonal cycles, without lust nor passion, and the females lay their eggs in huge community nests, where they are left to fend for themselves. their hate is usually reserved for the sargn, and their curiosity fuels their interactions with the humans and elyrials, though neither of them are too keen on forming any sort of relationship with the keresin. attempting to comunicate with a keresin through anything other than logical reasoning is most often futile. they do not chat about the weather.

their skin is smooth and shiny scales of any colour or pattern, and their physiques are slender and graceful. they are often described as "snake-like" in appearance and movement. they have infravision (ability to see heat), are far more likely to be born able to weave magic than any other species, and have other things i can't remember.

sargn (SAR-ehn): sargni are also descendants from the same lineage as the keresin, but the two species coulnd't be more different. where the keresin are cold and emotionally void, the sargn are a very emotionally focused people. they form small communities and deep relationships with each other. where the keresin treat breeding as an informal formality, the sargni are very selective and breed out of love. where the keresin are driven by curiosity, the sargni are content with what they have. they do not form many relationships with other species, simply for wariness of being abused (as they have seen from humans many times). they focus their lives on the pursuit of creativity and expression, and their music is often commented on as being the best in the world.

the sargni are much larger than the other species (though only slightly larger than the ka'tarrh), being around 11, to 12 feet tall. they are very muscular and strong, being forged as warriors from their aeons of war with the keresin. their skin is thick, hard and scaly, and can be any colour or pattern. as with the keresin, both male and females of the sargni are virtually indistinguishable to the human eye. they have many strength and AC bonuses, and gain experience at 80% the normal rate.

ka'tarrh (kah-TARH): the ka'tarrh are a chaotic species. they are fueled by a need to satisfy base desires. in terms of numbers they are by far the dominant species in the world, but fortunately for the other species, they are far from the brightest or most organised. they are usually slaves and military for the keresin, and this not only benefits the keresin directly, but also benefits the humans and elyrials indirectly in that the keresin have little interest in attacking them, thus they effectively pre-occupy the ka'tarrh by mkaing them slaves. among other ka'tarrh, individuals are constantly vyeing for power or possessions, and their sexual selection consists of "only the strong survive", in that breeding for any ka'tarrh, male or female, is a matter of finding an ideally strong mate, considering whether they are capable of overpowering this mate, and then forceably mating with them. humans would consider this rape, but ka'tarrh have neither the emotional capacity to feel bothered by this nor the need to, as this is their way of life. their leaders (when they are not keresin) are always the strongest or otherwise most powerful (magic, comparitive  tactical genius) but never remain for long before another one takes over. thus, instead of having the brains to use their numbers to their advantage, most of their energy is spent on in-fighting.

their physical appearance varies as much as a humans' does, in terms of height, weight, skin color and all that, but their skin is coloured differently to humans, taking shades of blues and greys, greens and deep oranges, and a huge range of other colours. they usually have horns or spikes on their heads, shoulders or backs, and even elbows knees and forearms, and the arrangement, size, and colour of these varies as much as everything else about them. they usually stand around 10 foot tall, and gain one extra ability point per level.

questions
is this not a wide enough variety of species?

right now humans are kind of under the keresin and the ka'tarrh in terms of dominance over the world, does this present a problem for a players' suspension of disbelief?

there are other humanoid species in the world, namely the malenym (mah-leh-NIM), but they are largely elementally focused and might be too powerful as playable characters... should i try to make them playable anyway?

any comments or suggestions or criticisms?

[greyorm]

Ravien,

Sorry about the wait in getting back to you, I've been offline for a bit with PC problems.

Unfortunately, I'm still confused. The system looks like it works, but I'm just not getting where some of the results you're declaring in the battles are coming from. I've read the examples over a couple times and am still left scratching my head at certain points saying, "Alright, if you say so."

I'm assuming there's tables and charts that you have access to which I don't that makes it all make more sense?

(Gah...sorry my feedback isn't more specific.)

[Mike Holmes]

I'm curious about how chargen works. One thing that strikes me right off (and forgive me if I've missed something) but what's the difference between two characters one with a 24 stat, and one with a 25. From the above, they both provide a +12 mod. So what do the raw stats do?

A lot of games coming from the d20 tradition keep this odd artifact from D&D - having a primary stat with a derived mod that has meaning while the primary does not. IOW, is there something that's preventing you from just using the mod as the stat itself? That is, why can't my character just have a +12 stat instead of a 24? And +0 is the average ability?

There may well be a reason, but if so, I can't see it yet.

To address your question about magic and "subdual" damage (that's pretty archaic, couldn't you call it pain or something?), the first question is to ask if you are concerned with power balance or not, and why. The answer to your question depends heavily on how you answer this question.

Mike

[Ben O'Neal]

greyorm: yes, there are 5 tables that i have access to that you don't, because i can't post tables. they all fit on one page: the "GM page". it has conflict resolution tables for melee duelling (attack and defend as the tides of the battle turn), melee heedless (both parties attack praying that they are fast enough to avoid the opponents blow at the same time), the damage table, the accuracy DC table (target distance by target movement to subtract from the accuracy roll, making the shot harder/easier), and finally the dodge resolution table (are you fast enough to get inside their defense and stab them in the armpit? or were you too slow and got the sharp end of their sword?).

as for what is actually happening during combat, like whether one character is swinging high, if you choose to defend, if you want to cleave them in two with an overhead strike, or whatever, that is all pure narration. players say "i'm gonna stab this guy in the eye" and i say "roll your attack". at the same time i roll the defense for the opponent, and if hte player succeeds, the description of their action has all the info i need: aiming for the head, so i know where to look on the damage table, and bingo, i say "your dagger punches through this guys eye with a sickening squelch, quickly cut off by his screams as he claws away at your dagger".

i'm slowly getting closer to having the play-test pdf ready (78 pages so far, with plenty more to go!, 54,500 words!. not much i know, but i've certainly never typed anything so big before), and hopefully the section explaining combat in that is clearer than what i've been able to give here, especially because it has the tables and full descriptions of everything used.


mike: sure, i should have explained that. the reason i have used attributes with a derived mod, is to acheive the "law of diminishing returns". attributes from 10 to 20 increase on a 1:1 ratio. at 10 your mod is 0, and at 20 your mod is 10. from 21 to 30, your attributes increase at a 2:1 ratio, so at 21 your mod is 11, and at 30 your mod is 15. from 31 onwards (there really is no upper limit, but i'm treating 100 like a score VERY few will ever reach), attributes increase at a 3:1 ratio. at 31 your mod is 15, but at 50 your mod is 22. plus i do use the actual attribute of constitution for the purposes of determining a character's base AC.

i wanted to use the diminishing returns for a few reasons, but mostly i like it cos it means that players of lower levels can accelerate quickly, and then they are faced with a choice: do i spend an attribute point on this important attribute, even though i won't see any immediate result until next level? or do i spend it on this other attribute which comes in handy now and then, but in doing so  potentially putting myself at a disadvantage against others of my class? plus as i've been creating characters with it and making them different levels, i've noticed that it just feels right.

and sure i could call subdual damage 'pain'. i could call it nausea, or fatigue, or sleepiness, or 'ouchies'. i could call it anything you want. find and replace is an awesome feature in MSWord! but its just a name. and i think if i were to rename it (i've considered it a few times myself), i'd probably call it fatigue, because that's what it most closely represents. spellcasters don't feel pain when they cast, they get worn out.

now to your question: is the threat of subdual damage there for balance? no, not really. spellcasters are fantastically powerful so i'm not really concerned about balance. what i am concerned about though, are two things: one, making my system parallel my own concepts of magic, and in my mind, magic should allow freedom and power, but the use of it is tiring. this also opens up a whole load of tactics to use as a spellcaster, and personally, i feel that without the threat of subdual damage (remembering that you roll to avoid it, and so have the potential to not take any at all), magic would be kinda bland and taken for granted. there really is no chance of a spell failing unless it is countered, so if magic didn't have the repurcussion of tiring the caster, one spellcaster would barely yawn after destroying an entire army and city fortress.

the second reason is closely tied into the first, and i even partially explained it, and that is a reason that has been addressed by many in a topic on "unlimited magic" here at the forge. ie: without a limit, magic is not special. it loses its wonder factor, and all possible tactical use is really destroyed.


but i guess now is as good a time as any to clarify a few things which have been brought to my attention as "unquestioned assumptions". for starters, let me just say that there is not one aspect that i have included in eclipse that has not undergone rigourous testing and questioning in my mind.

a d20 dice: why? why not 3d6? or any number of other die? sure, multiple die give a normal distribution, but thats about it as far as i can see for their advantages. the advantages of using a d20? DANGER! every roll you make there is a 1 in 20 chance of rolling any given number, and thus the outcome is not at all predictable. with 3d6, you know that more often than not, you'll roll 11 or 12. also, a d20 is much faster to read the result. i like these things, and i feel that using any other method of rolling die would make combat more predictable and make mistakes more common when adding up die for the 50th time that night.

classes: why? why not classless? sure, classless offers total freedom. but that's not what i want. in "real life", no-one has total freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want. they have to really work for it, and doing so nearly always involves neglecting some aspect of your life. i want spellcasters to be special and unique, classless does not allow this easily. and whislt everyone in my world has the potential to become a psionic, not everyone devotes their lives to the difficult training and hardships required to harness that power. classes add something to a game, and even more importantly, they avoid homogeneity, which is something i try to steer clear of.

skills: why? because they make sense and give players options. some systems think skills are so important that everything becomes a skill. i've yet to see a skill-less system that isn't bland.

abilities (feats if you will): i like them. they are one more step to customising your character and making them really stand out, and i can't get enough of ways to make my characters unique. if i can make something where players think "damn, i don't know which one to choose because they are all so good". then i have done my job.

levels: something to work towards. a way to easily distinguish between a good character and an old character. something to give players a sense of achievement, in terms of incremental goals. sure, sense of achievement comes from many areas in my system, but another one sure doesn't hurt. plus they are useful for making character progression predictable so i can better accomodate for their potentials, and know what they can handle without extensive reading of their character sheets.

non-human playable species (races, whatever): it's a fantasy world. nuff said.

really i can't think of anything else that is similar to other systems i've seen, and even these things which i have used, i have modified strongly to my liking.

but i'll think some more on the naming of "subdual damage", perhaps i will call it fatigue. but pain really doesn't fit with how it is used.

if anyone has any more questions or comments, i'd be more than happy to accomodate them.

[Mike Holmes]

mike: sure, i should have explained that. the reason i have used attributes with a derived mod, is to acheive the "law of diminishing returns". attributes from 10 to 20 increase on a 1:1 ratio. at 10 your mod is 0, and at 20 your mod is 10. from 21 to 30, your attributes increase at a 2:1 ratio, so at 21 your mod is 11, and at 30 your mod is 15. from 31 onwards (there really is no upper limit, but i'm treating 100 like a score VERY few will ever reach), attributes increase at a 3:1 ratio. at 31 your mod is 15, but at 50 your mod is 22.

OK, diminishing returns are a standard concept. My question is how are the stats determined? Do you roll them, or select them with points, or what? And how to they increase? My point is that you can put the diminishing return into the chargen of the character and/or the rewards portion, and eliminate a bunch of unneccessary recordkeeping.

[/quote]plus i do use the actual attribute of constitution for the purposes of determining a character's base AC.[/quote]AC? Is that armor class?

One exception isn't usually a good idea. So why not just base the AC mod on the mod for con (or what I think the stat should be)? Much simpler, and you get the diminishing returns again, which is probably beneficial.

[/quote]and sure i could call subdual damage 'pain'. i could call it nausea, or fatigue, or sleepiness, or 'ouchies'. i could call it anything you want. find and replace is an awesome feature in MSWord! but its just a name. and i think if i were to rename it (i've considered it a few times myself), i'd probably call it fatigue, because that's what it most closely represents. spellcasters don't feel pain when they cast, they get worn out. [/quote]My point wasn't that I thought pain was better, just that "subdual" damage is a really old skool term. Fatigue has been used a jillion times too, but I think it would be a vast improvement on subdual damage.

I think that you're pretty open minded, so I'm going to take the risk of insulting you by pointing you to two essays. The first is in the articles link at the top of this page, called "Fantasy Hearbreakers." The second is [url-http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5564]Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers Know Your Hobby![/url]

Essentially, the game you're creating here has been done dozens, maybe hundreds of times, and if you don't do something to make it unique, it's going to suffer from "Heartbreaker Syndrome" at best.

now to your question: is the threat of subdual damage there for balance? no, not really.

That's all you had to say. If it's not for balance, then it should be what you think it should be - very likely just how you have it. OTOH...

the second reason is closely tied into the first, and i even partially explained it, and that is a reason that has been addressed by many in a topic on "unlimited magic" here at the forge. ie: without a limit, magic is not special. it loses its wonder factor, and all possible tactical use is really destroyed.

Yeah, that was me who wrote that. The thing is, fatigue, while better than nothing IMO, only serves to explain the limited use of magic. It doesn't really convey the "wonder" aspect of magic much. In fact, it makes it a lot like ditch digging in that it's just hard work. The costs that make magic more thematically interesting go beyond just paying with sweat. So, depending on what you want out of magic, keep that in mind. There are an infinite number of other costs that you can use. Start with a philosophy of where magic comes from, and that sort of thing, and you may find whole new areas to make your magic special.

Fatigue is probably the most common cost for spellcasting in all RPG play (well, maybe second behind D&D fire and forget, but in terms of systems...).

for starters, let me just say that there is not one aspect that i have included in eclipse that has not undergone rigourous testing and questioning in my mind.

That's an excellent attitude. Do you have a good background for comparisons, however?

a d20 dice: why? why not 3d6? or any number of other die? sure, multiple die give a normal distribution, but thats about it as far as i can see for their advantages. the advantages of using a d20? DANGER!

You might be surprised to note that a lot of people herabouts agree with your notion on this one.

OTOH, the real advantage of more dice is not the bell, neccessarily, but the fact that you have many more potential outcomes to play with (216, in the case of 3d6, in fact). So, depending on useage, a d20 can be comparatively limiting. But so far I think you're on the right track.

classes: why? why not classless? sure, classless offers total freedom. but that's not what i want. in "real life", no-one has total freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Again, I think that most people here would agree with you. Constraint is often better than freedom. That said, there are a ton of other ways to have constraint that are potentially better than classes. Right now, it's hard to say what's better for your game - we'd need to see more. But just so you know, classes are only one way to accomplish the goal you've set for your game.

skills: why? because they make sense and give players options. some systems think skills are so important that everything becomes a skill. i've yet to see a skill-less system that isn't bland.

Try thinking in terms of the types of effectiveness that your characters will have overall. Skills are fine, so are attributes, Feats, abilities, whatever. The question, however, is do they support your other goals? We've yet to really see a vision for your game, so it's hard to say, really.

But in terms of making characters interesting, what really matters is what play is going to be about. What will the characters in this game be doing?

levels: something to work towards. a way to easily distinguish between a good character and an old character. something to give players a sense of achievement, in terms of incremental goals. sure, sense of achievement comes from many areas in my system, but another one sure doesn't hurt. plus they are useful for making character progression predictable so i can better accomodate for their potentials, and know what they can handle without extensive reading of their character sheets.

The problem with levels as a reward are the fact that you only get the reward relatively infrequently. OTOH, as you point out you have other goals, so they can probably step in for short term reinforcement. Still, doesn't that sorta dilute the point of levels in the first place?

As far as power indicators, Levels have proven to be very bad - there are much better ways to rate character competence. So I don't buy that argument at all. D&D and challenge levels are classic this way - after 10th level or so, level becomes completely irrellevant. Much more important is how much gear the character has picked up, etc.

non-human playable species (races, whatever): it's a fantasy world. nuff said.

Cool. Do you think that your races have enough memetic power to be atttractive to play? When players play them, how concerned are you that they play them "correctly"? That is, if a player had an elyrial burn down a forest, would there be an acceptable reason to do that?


The overall question I'd have for you is "who is your target audience?" And how do will your game appeal to them?

Mike

[Ben O'Neal]

mike: thanks for your reply, i enjoyed reading your comments.

character creation looks a little like this: roll 4d4+2 per attribute (range of 6-18, average=12), then swap any two with any other two. conceptually, this works to loosely parallel being born without any control over what you will be like, but then as the years go by and you grow up you can devote your time to improving some areas and perhaps neglecting others. in my many trials i've found that there is a certain agreeable amount of min/maxing and it's rather hard to roll a crappy character. i understand i could have just given X number of points to be distributed, but i personally don't like that idea, not least because it can create conceptually "unrealistic" characters.

you get X skill points to spend on skills, where X=double your crystal score (crystal is the attribute for learning, among other things).

of course there are plenty of other aspects to character creation but thats really the mechanical side, which i think is what you were after.

progression goes a little like this: whenever you roll a natural 20, you gain 1 attribute point on the attribute that the roll used (every roll made uses at least one attribute's modifier). this, along with skills being learnt through use, gives non-level based progression. as for levelling up, different classes get different things, but all get either 4 or 5 attribute points per level (helpful if you never roll a natural 20 :D ). i'd be interested in how one might factor diminishing returns into attributes with a simpler method than a table that tells you what attribute gives what modifier. i don't doubt it could be done, but i can't see how it could be simpler.

AC is armor class yes. technically, it might be better served by calling it 'hardness', or 'TS' (tensile strength), because what it measures is the physical resistance that things (like armor and bodies) have to being cut, bent, dented, or otherwise maltreated, as opposed to some (more) abstract concept of how hard it is to hit somewhere soft amidst armor, moving etc. but i personally feel that the benefit of sticking with a familiar term outweighs the benefit of simply making up a new acronym for the sake of making up a new acronym.

One exception isn't usually a good idea. So why not just base the AC mod on the mod for con (or what I think the stat should be)? Much simpler, and you get the diminishing returns again, which is probably beneficial.

because if i used the Con mod to increase base AC, then very quickly it would become almost impossible to damage anyone. i agree that one exception is not the best idea, and originally i had it so that base AC could not be improved through increasing Con. and now that i think about it, i probably don't need it anymore (it was a concept adapted to fit with an early magic mechanic which no longer exists). so thanks for bringing it up! cos now i can remove it.

also, i have used the trusty "find + replace" feature that is so handy in large documents to turn 'subdual damage' into 'fatigue'. it fits better i think, and i agree that it is a vast improvement. personally, i don't really care how many times a name has been used, so long as the meaning fits and is intuitive.

you have not insulted me at all by pointing to those two essays, i have read them both. i understand full well that i am not exactly 'breaking new ground' here, nor am i likely to ever do so, thus i am not insulted that others agree! as for something to make it unique, in terms of raw mechanics, i doubt there is much. i can't say my particular take on combat resolution is revolutionary, but i honestly have never seen anything so simple that deals with the same concepts before. no, TROS is not even in the same ballpark of simplicity (honestly, no offence to those who love TROS, i think it's quite a stand-out system, with many great ideas, but it just isn't my thing). as for the heartbreaker label... well, it's already been said, and thus it will never leave. eclipse is a heartbreaker because that is how it is seen. there's nothing i can do to remove that label, but honestly, i don't believe it deserves it until at least one other person has gone through the completed thing with at least a half-arsed attempt at an open mind :D

oh, and i really don't have the money to buy bookcases of systems to ensure mine is unique/problem free. to do so would be great, but it's beyond my abilities.

as for magic and fatigue, unfortunately, given the philosophical concepts and 'how the universe works' of Eclipse, fatigue is really the only thing that makes sense as a cost. this is probably because i drew my inspiration from both Magician and The Wheel of Time. as a side note, whilst a mechanic can do a great job of conveying the 'wonder' of magic, i think that 'image' or 'social status' can do so at least as well. ie: Great Ones in Magician, who are outside the law, and who reside in The Academy, working for the good of the empire, and Aes Sedai, who are similarly isolated and held in wonderment and fear for their social status.

Let it be known that this is my first system ever! I am not a professional. i do not claim to be. i am only 22. when people pontificate about the ramifications for D&D after 2E, i nod and walk away. when people mention 16 systems with full references including historical 'special editions', i stay out of the conversation. does this all mean that i can't make a decent system? IMHO not at all. i am an artist, and just because i haven't painted with acryilics, or sculpted with stone, this does not mean that i cannot draw a picture. it is in my nature to look at a thing, and set my creativity whirling. when i draw, if my picture would benefit from an extra light source, but my subject does not have it, i stick it in there anyway. if my picture would look better if i took a few pounds off the legs, i take them off. i feel that this works as an analogy to how i approached eclipse, and just like many of my drawings are based solely off my own imagination, so too eclipse is based off my ideals.

what will characters in my game be doing? who are my target audience? well, i'll answer the second question first: my target audience are people who feel that what characters do in my game is the sort of thing they themselves would like to do. so to answer both questions, characters in Eclipse live in a world where magic is rare, but at it's peak. not really 'high magic', because it is rare, but it is certainly powerful. this has an inevitable impact on society and cultures. characters can really do an aweful lot of things, but i guess one thing that won't really be happening too often is 'dungeon crawling'. that's a good way to get dead fast. plus dungeons don't exist. they aren't at all necessary. why would any sane person build a dungeon? anyways, i envision characters integrating with their world. juggling responsibilities to their social groups (temple orders, guilds, nobility, other organisations) with their own desires and responsibilities to friends and party members. it's really hard to explain, not because i don't know, but because of the concepts and possibilities involved. perhaps it would be best explained by an example (!!!LENGTHINESS WARNING!!!).

far to the south of the kingdom, a keresin sorcerer discovers a way to not only become undead (something that can be done in eclipse, having to do with transfering the flows of positive energy that flow from the god Araboth that sustain life, to flows of negative energy that flow from The Nameless), but to be re-born with negative energy. the result? he becomes an incredibly powerful vampire. very quickly, he begins making more vampires, and learns of their weaknesses, particularly how sunlight disintegrates their flesh instantly. so, annoyed with such a strong limitation, he spends a few decades developing an artifact that can create perpetual night locally. the area of perpetual night grows slowly though, so after a few decades, his ex-brethren keresin are now facing a rather powerful menace. after many attempts to destroy this menace, they eventually decide to flee. unfortunately, the only direction they can safely flee to, is The Kingdom. after many failed diplomatic attempts to inhabit kingdom land en-masse, they are forced to invade with their massive ka'tarrh slave army. 3 years later, and the Kingdom is almost entirely overun, but the war comes to a stalemate as the Kingdom finds favourable choke-points. the Kingdom also is the location of The Academy, a society of mages and sorcerers who, in negotiations with the keresin, have brough about a magic truce, agreeing that neither army will wield magic against the other for fear of the total and utter destruction such a war would bring. but conventional war is still a viable option. the Kingdom, long ago, developed 3 artifacts that are each possessed by the king, his queen, and their prince. these three artifacts can activate a portal to the realm of Araboth, under agreement with that god that this portal would only be activated under direst need, and, when activated, would allow the Kingdom to enlist the service of Araboth's Engels. a seperate agreement, made between the kingdom and all the orders of all the gods ensured that all their permission would be needed to activate the portal, as each order loaths for anything to happen that is not in their control. unknownst to most people, the orders use their clerics as spies, and sometimes even place them in high authority, just to ensure they know whats going on, and can influence it in some way. the thieves guild that governs the 4 northern towns is, like many thieves guilds, very knowledgeable about the world. it has learnt of the kingdoms plans to use this portal if the invading keresin and their ka'tarrh army breach the last held lines. being the guild that they are, they are currently profiting immensely from the floods of refuges and overcrowding, and do not want this to be taken away without their consent, and also see quite a pretty penny in ransom for one of these artifacts, and as they see it, it's a win-win situation to steal the easiest to obtain artifact, the ring in possession of the prince.

here is where my players come in (though they know nothing of the previous paragraph except about the war). one of my players was a thief, so he was one of 3 enlisted to 'obtain' the prince. one of my players was a cleric, and she was ordered to serve as a mercenary guard of a travelling caravan (the caravan of the prince, but she did not know this because it is safer that the prince travel 'undercover', and she is not high enough in her order to be told who she was guarding and why). the third player in my group is a mage, who was simply going where her master told her to go, and her master was also travelling with this caravan, as he was one of the princes boyhood teachers.

so far my thief has failed to complete his task, and is marked for death by the thieves guild, the mage's master died in an accident involving a dragon and a horse, and my mage never thought to bury her master's body, so now he lingers as a ghost, haunted by the fact that he died such an anti-climactic death and his body was eaten by the local goblin tribe (players don't know this last bit yet), and so he is beginning to haunt my mage, and the cleric has been instructed by her order to uncover the failed plot to kidnap the prince. they have discovered a pirate slave smuggling operation (many refugees+overcrowding=easy pickings), and have earnt the emnity of the pirates by burning down one of their ships, and after uncovering vital tactical knowledge about what the Sakrumar (evil order who worship The Nameless) are up to, they have decided to purchase war-wings (giant falcon/owl mounts) to help them hunt the pirate slavers and get to the core of the operation. they are also traditionally D&D players, and so hunting pirates from the air is also a good way to make treasure in their eyes.

obviously i couldn't possibly hope to abbreviate the entire complexity of my campaign in any single post, but i hope that gives some sort of idea. basically, i want characters who become heroes of their world, by simply doing what they feel is the right thing to do, and somehow managing to stay alive. i love the idea of characters who don't feel like heroes while they play, but do feel like heroes in retrospect. i plan on campaigns being as intricate and involving as a good novel. i don't see eclipse being used for one-session adventures, or parties who fulfill isolated quests. it's more for plots overlayed with other plots and interwoven with still more plots, where they might stumble across something only to realise its significance later.

i didn't design eclipse to make games that run this way, i designed it to allow them to. i feel there is a distinct difference. perhaps some other system could achieve this simple goal, perhaps even better. but just because there are other ways to travel from A to B, some even faster or safer, i'd still choose to travel in a Lamborghini Murcielago. not because of the wheels, or the leather interior, or the engine, or even the chassis, but because of the whole package that is the car. with luck, maybe that metaphor might explain how i feel about eclipse, and who might be my target audience.

finally, if an elyrial burnt down a forest, then there may very well be an acceptable reason for that, but whilst i can't (don't want to) make it a mechanic, there would definately be repurcussions for that elyrial, both in the immediate future (where will that fire spread, what will its total effects be?) and in the longer term (reputation, vengeance against him/her, family honour/shame etc.). whilst my "races" have cultures and junk, they all still have free will and individuality. and in my opinion, sometimes it's the oddballs that make for the best characters. an intelligent, charming, and sophisticated ka'tarrh would be a laugh!

P.S. my deepest apologies for the lengthiness of my posts. i'm used to posting in debates and discussion forums and writing essays on psychology and philosophy, so i fear "concise" is usually a boundary that i must struggle to fit into. you should hear my mum!

[Mike Holmes]

mike: thanks for your reply, i enjoyed reading your comments.

I'm glad that you've maintained your positive attitude.

of course there are plenty of other aspects to character creation but thats really the mechanical side, which i think is what you were after.

Yep, that covers it pretty well, thanks.

progression goes a little like this: whenever you roll a natural 20, you gain 1 attribute point on the attribute that the roll used (every roll made uses at least one attribute's modifier). this, along with skills being learnt through use, gives non-level based progression. as for levelling up, different classes get different things, but all get either 4 or 5 attribute points per level (helpful if you never roll a natural 20 :D ). i'd be interested in how one might factor diminishing returns into attributes with a simpler method than a table that tells you what attribute gives what modifier. i don't doubt it could be done, but i can't see how it could be simpler.

I can think of other ways to do this, but none of them are much simpler than what you have. Essentially, your ability levels are sorta like EXP - you keep track of them as they accumulate and then they convert to mods. You could just keep track of "points" accumulated, and then turn them in for an increase in mod. But that would still require book-keeping on each stat, so you don't gain much. And with your method, players can compare scores, so you might as well keep it.

It's the "directed" bonuses for the natural 20 that are requiring ths, however. That is, if you didn't have that, then you could just check the chart for cost to increase a mod when leveling up (going from +12 to +13 costs two, for instance). And while we're at it, this is really going to benefit lucky players. I mean, some player will roll a bunch of 20's before another rolls one - given the range on your abilities, won't this tend to throw off your balance for levels? I mean, lets say I typically make 100 rolls between levels. That averages 5 attribute increases between levels. Some player is going to get 8, however, and another only 2. The difference is more than a level's worth of ability points.

AC is armor class yes. technically, it might be better served by calling it 'hardness', or 'TS' (tensile strength), because what it measures is the physical resistance that things (like armor and bodies) have to being cut, bent, dented, or otherwise maltreated, as opposed to some (more) abstract concept of how hard it is to hit somewhere soft amidst armor, moving etc. but i personally feel that the benefit of sticking with a familiar term outweighs the benefit of simply making up a new acronym for the sake of making up a new acronym.

It's only more familiar to players who haven't played anything but D&D. And that's a substantial group, no doubt, but represents probably less than a quarter of all RPG gamers. Even though the plurality of RPG players play D&D, most have played other games at least once. In any case, if you name it well, the name will convey what it means, and will better set the feel for what the stat does. I mean, if you called it Toughness or something, people would get the idea.

and now that i think about it, i probably don't need it anymore (it was a concept adapted to fit with an early magic mechanic which no longer exists). so thanks for bringing it up! cos now i can remove it.

Cool. You've just avoided what's termed in another game as "Naked Dwarf Syndrome," where you have the case where the naked dwarf is less susceptible to damage than a normal man in plate armor. :-)

also, i have used the trusty "find + replace" feature that is so handy in large documents to turn 'subdual damage' into 'fatigue'. it fits better i think, and i agree that it is a vast improvement. personally, i don't really care how many times a name has been used, so long as the meaning fits and is intuitive.

Excellent. The game, including terminology, should fit your vision.

you have not insulted me at all by pointing to those two essays, i have read them both. i understand full well that i am not exactly 'breaking new ground' here, nor am i likely to ever do so, thus i am not insulted that others agree! as for something to make it unique, in terms of raw mechanics, i doubt there is much.

Again, I'm glad you have such a good attitude, but I think that you sorta miss the point. I think you do have some innovative ideas. This is what makes this a heartbreaker. The fact that you are trying to plug your interesting ideas into a format that's going to kill them. Your assumption seems to be that if you make them similar to D20 that you'll end up making a game familiar enough that players will want to give it a try. But players play very unfamiliar games all the time, so you really don't have to worry about being similar. More importantly, if you make a similar game, none of the target audience will play. That is, D&D players play D&D because they like it. So who amongst them is going to switch? If the player is really dissatisfied with D&D, then they're going to want something substantively different, not a D&D rehash.

But there's even a worse problem...

i can't say my particular take on combat resolution is revolutionary, but i honestly have never seen anything so simple that deals with the same concepts before. no, TROS is not even in the same ballpark of simplicity (honestly, no offence to those who love TROS, i think it's quite a stand-out system, with many great ideas, but it just isn't my thing).

TROS is a poor example, because it definitively tries to be different in complexity level than D&D. It's argument is not that it's a simple game, not at all, but rather that the complexity is enjoyable. So if simplicity is your goal, then you have to compare to something more similar. And there are soooo many games like yours...

Again, not to be insulting, but your response above is what every heartbreaker designer posts. "No d20-like game is as simple as mine". Well, I haven't seen the totality of your game, but let me assure you that there are literally dozens of games with mechanics so similar to yours that it's frightening.

Here's a list of a couple hundred (no, I'm not exaggerating) free rpgs that focus on fantasy, many of them in precisely the way that you do.

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/bykeyword/fantasy.html

Add these to the list in the Heartbreaker essay, many of which sound very much like what you're proposing. If you just peruse a few, I think that you'll see that there are some which are just as simple as your system, if not simpler. Again, I've yet to see your system in it's entirity, but if it bears any resemblance to the D20 system (d20 + attribute + skill vs TN), then it's already been done by someone. Lots of someones.

as for the heartbreaker label... well, it's already been said, and thus it will never leave. eclipse is a heartbreaker because that is how it is seen. there's nothing i can do to remove that label, but honestly, i don't believe it deserves it until at least one other person has gone through the completed thing with at least a half-arsed attempt at an open mind :D

Well, that's the thing, I don't think it needs to be a heartbreaker, you can alter the design enough at this point to avoid that monicker. More importantly, I think you can better achieve your design goals by looking beyond d20 for inspiration.

OTOH, it's been said that sometimes the best way to get into design is to make a heartbreaker. The reason there are so many is because it's the way that half of designers start designing - myself for example. All I'm trying to do here is give you the option to skip that step if you like. If you feel the design is too far complete, or that you just want to finish it as is, I understand.

oh, and i really don't have the money to buy bookcases of systems to ensure mine is unique/problem free. to do so would be great, but it's beyond my abilities.

This is the second thing that people always say. Check out John's site above for more free RPGs. Not all of them are worthwhile, but some very much are. Can you afford free? ;-)

Usually the next objection is that nobody has time to look through all this stuff. The effort to learn your hobby is the difference between being able to make games that people will play, and games that will be forgotten as derivative. So that's up to you. In any case, I think that looking at about six key games would really help you out. Check out:

GURPS Lite
Action!
FUDGE
Active Exploits
Story Bones
The Pool

All free, all short (you could read them all in an afternoon), and all with something about them that may expand your horizons in important ways. After reading these you may have some ideas about directions that you may want to explore, which would lead to other RPGs to explore.

You don't have to know every RPG, you just need to have an idea of what exists in general terms.

as for magic and fatigue, unfortunately, given the philosophical concepts and 'how the universe works' of Eclipse, fatigue is really the only thing that makes sense as a cost. this is probably because i drew my inspiration from both Magician and The Wheel of Time. as a side note, whilst a mechanic can do a great job of conveying the 'wonder' of magic, i think that 'image' or 'social status' can do so at least as well. ie: Great Ones in Magician, who are outside the law, and who reside in The Academy, working for the good of the empire, and Aes Sedai, who are similarly isolated and held in wonderment and fear for their social status.

I completely agree. So in that case, I'd put in mechanics to represent this effect. If you want a game to make a statement of some sort regarding these sorts of themes, then you have to make it part of the rules somehow. See the essay in the articles section called "System Does Matter."

Let it be known that this is my first system ever! I am not a professional. i do not claim to be. i am only 22. when people pontificate about the ramifications for D&D after 2E, i nod and walk away. when people mention 16 systems with full references including historical 'special editions', i stay out of the conversation. does this all mean that i can't make a decent system? IMHO not at all.

Depends what "decent" means. "Functional?" Sure, I'm positive you can achieve that. A game that people will play over the hundreds of other heartbreakers? Well, why would they? If you don't make it stand out, then who's going to notice it?

my target audience are people who feel that what characters do in my game is the sort of thing they themselves would like to do. so to answer both questions, characters in Eclipse live in a world where magic is rare, but at it's peak. not really 'high magic', because it is rare, but it is certainly powerful. this has an inevitable impact on society and cultures.

Standard response number three. They "live" in the setting. OK, I make a character who's a human warrior. Now what does he do? Who's ass do I get to kick? Do I get to kick ass?

characters can really do an aweful lot of things, but i guess one thing that won't really be happening too often is 'dungeon crawling'. that's a good way to get dead fast. plus dungeons don't exist. they aren't at all necessary. why would any sane person build a dungeon?

But dungeon crawling is fun. All you've done here is take away one fun thing to do in the name of "realism". That still doesn't tell me what the character does that's interesting.

anyways, i envision characters integrating with their world. juggling responsibilities to their social groups (temple orders, guilds, nobility, other organisations) with their own desires and responsibilities to friends and party members. it's really hard to explain, not because i don't know, but because of the concepts and possibilities involved.

OK, now we're getting somewhere, as a potential player, I'm starting to see some light at the end of the "what do I do?" tunnel.

here is where my players come in (though they know nothing of the previous paragraph except about the war).

Neat set up. I'm dissapointed that I can't play the sorcerer, his enemies, the royalty, etc. Why aren't they available as characters? They seem to be what the plot is all about.

one of my players was a thief, so he was one of 3 enlisted to 'obtain' the prince. one of my players was a cleric, and she was ordered to serve as a mercenary guard of a travelling caravan (the caravan of the prince, but she did not know this because it is safer that the prince travel 'undercover', and she is not high enough in her order to be told who she was guarding and why). the third player in my group is a mage, who was simply going where her master told her to go, and her master was also travelling with this caravan, as he was one of the princes boyhood teachers.

Hmmm. OK, I get it, the PCs do whatever they're told to do by somebody that the GM creates in order to have the plot move along smoothly. Is that it?

OK, I'm being snarky here. But you aren't presenting a vision of what the game is about.

(evil order who worship The Nameless)

A cult of Hastur is in this game? It's Cthuloid in nature? Well why didn't you say so?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

basically, i want characters who become heroes of their world, by simply doing what they feel is the right thing to do, and somehow managing to stay alive. i love the idea of characters who don't feel like heroes while they play, but do feel like heroes in retrospect. i plan on campaigns being as intricate and involving as a good novel. i don't see eclipse being used for one-session adventures, or parties who fulfill isolated quests. it's more for plots overlayed with other plots and interwoven with still more plots, where they might stumble across something only to realise its significance later.

All sounds pretty interesting, but there are two problems. First, where does all this setting and plot come from? That is, are you going to provide your setting that you've enumerated in your post to the GM, or does he have to make his own?

If you don't provide this setting, then you haven't really provided a "what to do". I mean, you can tell the GM to make a setting that allows the charcters to shine the way you want them to, but if the GM does it himself, then why does he need your game? System? What does your system do to cause the players to behave like heroes that D20 does not do?

Because, secondly, your setting sounds a lot like every other setting ever made for a fantasy game. You've got a Dark Lord (TM), you have the powers who want to see him destroyed, you have the desperate monarchs who will do whatever desperate act it takes to prevent the dark lord or the war around him from destroying their kingdoms. You have the mages bargaining from their vantage, you have secret orders of priests in service to their own orders and to secular powers, you have a section of Thieve's World in the game... Have you seen Midnight? The D20 game that intentionally emulates LOTR?

This alone isn't a problem, really. That is, with the right system, you could have people playing your setting against your dark lord...but there's another problem which is making this sort of play fun. You've heard the term "railroading?" What are your feelings on it?

And still, I'm not sure what the characters do. What do their character sheets tell me they do? I take it that combat is important? You mention it a lot (beware, I'm setting a trap for you here).

i didn't design eclipse to make games that run this way, i designed it to allow them to. i feel there is a distinct difference.

Standard thing number four that all heartbreaker designers say. Yes, there's a difference, see System Does Matter. I can name at least 20 other systems off the top of my head that I think would "allow" players to do what you desire. But you admit that, so...

perhaps some other system could achieve this simple goal, perhaps even better. but just because there are other ways to travel from A to B, some even faster or safer, i'd still choose to travel in a Lamborghini Murcielago. not because of the wheels, or the leather interior, or the engine, or even the chassis, but because of the whole package that is the car. with luck, maybe that metaphor might explain how i feel about eclipse, and who might be my target audience.

Yes, but, see, you're model for designing your game was the descendant of the 1976 Ford Pinto, the 2000 Ford Taurus. So what you're actually designing is the Saturn. Which is a fine car, it's just no Lamborghini. Moreover, why should they pick the Saturn instead of the Mercury?

I should actually be more specific - you're game will have some players after you finish it. Every heartbreaker has the three fans of the system who "see" what the designer was after, and swear by the system. Predictably, these three have never seen any other system than D&D. The same three guys still driving Edsels.

It's funny, but I use the car metaphor all the time for design. Many of the "innovations" that you're putting into your game come off to us like saying, "look, I've invented the seat belt!" The ideas have been around for decades, literally. Like, for instance, the idea of advancement based off of die rolls was instituted in RuneQuest in 1978, I think (CoC 1980 for sure). "Fatigue" was first used in TFT, IIRC, 1980. I could go on. It's funy that you compare to TROS (which is like the M1 Abrams of gaming), because you haven't gotten past ideas which are 25 years old, much less modern designs.

I'm justy trying to give you some perspective. If you want to continue on your current path, then that's fine. The problem is that we really can't tell you much about how to improve your game - because most of the suggestions would involve changing things that you seem to be adamant about including. Like the safety belt thing, we'd be saying, "How about an air bag?" and you're response is, "No thanks, saftey belts are more familiar."

What is it that you'd like to see from us?

finally, if an elyrial burnt down a forest, then there may very well be an acceptable reason for that, but whilst i can't (don't want to) make it a mechanic, there would definately be repurcussions for that elyrial, both in the immediate future (where will that fire spread, what will its total effects be?) and in the longer term (reputation, vengeance against him/her, family honour/shame etc.). whilst my "races" have cultures and junk, they all still have free will and individuality. and in my opinion, sometimes it's the oddballs that make for the best characters. an intelligent, charming, and sophisticated ka'tarrh would be a laugh!

I think this is a very good attitude. The question is, what of your system promotes the repercussions that you talk about? More to the point, why won't players just take an elyrial for their Kewlness factor, and just ignore the culture? What about the system promotes the idea of race as somthing more than just a different set of effectiveness modifiers?

Again, System Does Matter. If the system doesn't promote the setting, then what will? Why play your system when another system will do as well?

P.S. my deepest apologies for the lengthiness of my posts. i'm used to posting in debates and discussion forums and writing essays on psychology and philosophy, so i fear "concise" is usually a boundary that i must struggle to fit into.

Not at all. This post isn't that unusual for around here, really. Your debate skills, etc, will suit you well around here.

Mike

[montag]

I'm gonna spare you the "you should be doing X instead" talk, but in substance, if not necessarily in style I'd agree with previous recommendations in that direction.

Anyway, concerning your "attribute progression problem". For one, another common approach is having players roll on increases (where a roll costs a certain number of EXP) and give them an increase when they roll over their current stat. That gives you the diminishing returns through probabilities (and through the fact, that players don't want to waste resources). Unfortunately this creates another problem: more uniform characters as the risk gets unattractive for players fast beyond the 50 percent chance at 10). (Offering a choice between fixed costs and a dice throw won't help, as it will be pretty obvious which option is more attractive.)
However, the real danger behind "learning by rolling" (I can't remember the technical term right now) is that it rewards rolling lots of dice. Despite its intuitive appeal, both in terms of "realism" and ease of use, in practice it has been found, that the reward mechanism tends to dominate player's behaviour (yes, we're all just rats, pressing buttons for food ;). At least that's the common experience reported from all system which use such a method. If – as you seem to be planning – the "learning by rolling" mechanism has the potential to outweigh normal levelling that effect is going to be even more pronounced.
(Apart from that, certain activities which are either (a) rarely performed or (b) rarely rolled on (e.g. social stuff) and consequently the PCs skilled in them tend to get screwed by the system.)
The extreme of this "perversion-of-play-through-system" is the magic user, who wastes enough spells in the evening to learn something (or, in your case, at least have a chance to roll a natural 20) and still be at his full power in the morning. *shudder*

[Robert K Beckett]

However, the real danger behind "learning by rolling" (I can't remember the technical term right now) is that it rewards rolling lots of dice.  

Ravien, how do you plan to prevent this kind of abuse (other than just requiring the GM to constantly decide whether a roll is legit or not)? I'm curious because I really like the "learn by rolling" mechanism in theory but I agree with montag that it often encourages rolling for rolling's sake. Any ideas?