Howdy all. This is my first time here (a friend referred me when I started thinking about doing a game). Anyway... I'd appreciate any feedback on my system/world idea.

I want a simple, flexible system with equal support for magic and science. The idea is pretty standard for a modern setting: the modern world everyone knows is superficial, and underneath it you have massive conspiracies, aliens, vampires, demons, superscience, magic, all that kind of thing. Whether you want to be a hacker cybernetically augmented by the Illuminati or a paranormal fiend-killer armed with holy weapons, the support is in the system without huge numbers of additional sourcebooks.

The details of the system still need to be fleshed out, but they focus on three points:

1: Characters are fundamentally skill based. Rather than starting with the attributes, characters assign their skills, which directly determine their attributes. If a character puts a lot of points into negotiation and research, his mental attributes will be high. If he puts a lot of points into gunplay and martial arts, his physical attributes will be high. I don't yet know how many and what type of attributes would be used.

2: Characters' abilities and powers can be easily scaled to fit any game scope Characters can have powers of any sort, from fire magic to invulnerability to enhanced senses. However, they don't have to. A GM can run a no-power game and have his players simply serve as investigators or brawlers, without any special powers. A low-power game can could give them an edge, like low-level D&D games or Shadowrun. A high-power game can let them face world-threatening plots and Justice League-like battles.

3: Characters' origins are flexible, with balanced differences between magic, science, and other sources of power Powers can come from any source, but those sources have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example, a psychic might have magical mental powers, or some sort of cybernetic telepathy implant. If magical, his powers could be disrupted by copper and iron. If cybernetic, his powers could be disrupted by electromagnetic interference. A vampire hunter with a silver stake would fare better against a regenerating demon than a cyborg with a high-tech gun. Conversely, that hunter would have a harder time against a security turret than the cyborg would.

So... how does this sort of thing sound? Is it worth developing?

Hi there!

I venture this suggestion, but if it really doesn't fit what you want, then that's OK too. It is: let's abandon your #2, for now. If you pick a meaningful scope, one you care about, and make the game work for that alone, then it's better than constantly re-adjusting every feature in the design for scaling purposes. Scaling effects is a chasm into which many game designers have fallen, and their echoes still drift up to the rest of us.

Here's a point about your #1, too - do you really need attributes, at all? It seems to me that in what you describe, I will know all about my character's strength, smarts, et cetera, just by looking at the skill list. I know this flies in the face of many RPG assumptions, but amazingly, many RPGs have actually benefited greatly by this idea. It seems like a good fit for what you're talking about.

Finally, here's my really big suggestion, with a lot of experience behind it. I suggest you head over to the forum called Actual Play, and just ... tell us about some role-playing experiences of your own. Especially ones which led you to think about this game and this setting. Check out the threads there and see how it's done, then dive in. You will not believe how valuable this is, for getting the community here to give you exactly the help you need for your game design.

Best, Ron

Hi,

your idea sounds quite interesting and I think worth developing.

to #1: If you do not need Attributes do not implement them, cause you want a "simple, flexible" system. You can for example use the average of two (or more-if you like the math) related skills.
to #2: same as Ron; It will help to think if your game should be cinematic or simulationistic...
to #3: Please think of the combination of science and magic. For example a composit-bow using enchanted arrows and so on. Same with mixed chars.

First off, I'll echo what's already said before on #2.  Ditch scalability.  Design the game to do what you want.  Let people who want something different go hang.  Because here's a little secret -- they'll take what you wrote and play what they want with it, anyway.  Somewhere, somebody is playing a Monty Haul dungeoncrawl using Sorcerer.  Players are perverse little weasels like that.

However, I'll take a moment to stand up in defense of attributes.  Depending on your implementation, you may find attributes to be a worthwhile element of your system because they are what skills are not.  Attributes are common to all players whereas Skills are not common.  This means that you can use them for values that everybody in the game will need access to.  I'm not really talking about "pick up the heavy thing" here, although that marginally qualifies.  I mean things like rolling to resist the crazy powers you're packaging in, or rolling to overcome poisons or whatever.  Especially if you are using a prefabricated power list (with or without guidelines to write your own), the write-ups for those powers will fundamentally require stats that you can assume all players have access to.  Saying "the other player can resist with whatever skill is appropriate" has some mack-truck-sized problems (problems that can be fixed, but not easily).

Again, though, this depends heavily on your implementation, and I should point out that writing the character generation first and the die-rolling/card-drawing/domino-pointing rules second can get you into trouble.  Before you finalize how characters are made, you should have a pretty good idea how they are used.  Can you tell us about that?

Scale is kinda arbitrary, if you want it to be.  One success on a punch could mean "a bruised jaw" or it could mean "a new crater on the moon".  If the former and the latter are interacting directly, you can have automatic success/failure rules, like sorcerer.  The GM thinks "if MegaPunch hits Joe Lawyer, Joe Lawyer becomes a pink mist.  Vice versa, MegaPunch doesn't even feel it".  Integrating high and low scale combatants is where games like D&D fall apart.  Yes, you can play your apprentice up to near god like power, but the basic mechanics only work when dealing with god scale challenges.  Cut the numbers in half or tenths and start over, and the system stabilizes.

Scale the scale, if that makes any sense.

Thanks for the feedback!

You're right, attributes might be unnecessary in this situation. I'm just so used to having them in games like D&D, Shadowrun, Vampire, etc. But in the setting and with the mechanics I have imagined, it's really not that necessary, because skills are more important.

Scalability was a bit of a brainfart, I think. Though I do want players/GMs to have the option of special powers. Overall I want it to be a sort of low-end type of system, less about global threats and more about doing jobs, solving mysteries, et cetera. Perhaps give players the ability to get powers like damage resistance, telepathy, magic spells, et cetera. It can certainly be cinematic (see the bit about stunts, below), but it would be cinematic in a low-key setting, like a Hong Kong bullet ballet rather than a space opera.

Anyway, about the action system, itself...

I was thinking about a d10 system that gives GMs guidelines and requires challenges to be met, like the old Marvel Heroes RPGs. Every major action has a specific goal number, based on the desired action and modified by situational and environmental concerns. Skills grant bonuses to players in their rolls, as well as give them the experience and abilities obviously necessary. For example:

Gunslinger and Mort are in a gunfight with each other. They both draw and fire at the same time. Gunslinger has a pistol skill of 4. Mort has a pistol skill of 0; he's never handled a gun before. Since they're facing each other with nothing obscuring their line of shot, the challenge number is 7. Gunslinger's skill gives him a +4 bonus to his roll, so he just has to roll a 4 to hit Mort. Mort's never used a gun before, so he doesn't get a bonus at all; he has to get a 7 or greater. A successful roll causes weapon damage, and every additional point over the challenge ticks up the damage that weapon's damage increment. I'm still trying to flesh out health issues for balance's sake, but the idea is that it's one roll to attack, the various issues modify the requirements of that roll, damage is calculated simply.

Obviously that's just a combat example; issues like negotiations or hacking or whatnot could be much easier. For more example...

Negotiator is meeting a client and wants to get a 20% increase to his fee. He has a negotiation skill of 5. Obviously getting such a big markup is difficult, so the challenge number is 13; he has to roll an 8 or better. However, he studied his client ahead of time. They're at the client's favorite bar and Negotiator orders him his favorite drink before beginning negotiations. That challenge number just went down 2, and now he has to roll a 6 or better.

Obviously the numbers can (and will) be tweaked as I work out bugs and balance issues. But mechanically, that's how I see the game. The type of thing you could play with one d10.

Two additiomnal ideas I have for combat I sort of got from Shadowrun and Fung Shui: equipment specialization and stunts.

If a skill requires a certain kind of equipment, then that equipment effects the skill's bonus. A player has a rifle skill of 5 and has used his sniper rifle a great deal, so he knows exactly what it can do. He gets the full bonus of 5 with that rifle, but only a bonus of 3 with an unfamiliar gun; he doesn't know that particular gun's quirks. Similarly, a hacker would get a decreased skill bonus if hacking from a computer system that wasn't his, because his tools, programs, and file layouts aren't there.

Stunts I hope can encourage more creativity in combat and with action-based skills. When in a fight, a player can try to trick shoot or do a complex martial arts move instead of simply shoot and attack. If, rather than draw and fire, a player wants to kick his gun into the air, grab it, and then fire as he dives behind cover, the GM can increase the challenge number... BUT if the attack is successful, the damage is treated with the original challenge number, causing greater damage than with the modified challenge. UIt would mostly be at the GM's discretion, but I think it would encouratge cinematic, creative action.

These are all just sort of broad ideas I want to tighten and build on, but I appreciate the feedback!

Hi again,

If you use a d10 you must think of one thing: every roll shows something between 1 and 10. That makes it for you as GM hard to give a bonus for a good thought, because it increases the chance by 10%, what could be too much or not enough, same with penalties. If you use a d20, d30 or d100 you are more flexible.
But all these are strongly influenced by luck. If you use 3d6 (like GURPS does) you make it easier for pros and harder for newbies in a specific skill to achieve something.
You can simulate stunts by a kind of multi-tasking thinking, that means you can do multiple things at the same time, but everything gets harder per extra action, because it has to be done faster than normal or under other circumstances....
I don't remember the name of the game, but there is one out there, which gives you extra die for good ideas in combat situations. If you want you can adjust difficulties for  "cool" actions so they become easier than they would be in an uncool situation. Same with in game and in-character jokes etc.

The D10 just strikes me as a nice, even number. A scale of 1-10 is pretty direct, and it's not as arbitrary as a d20 or a d8 or the others. d20 also works, but I just like the 1-10 scale (though challenge numbers would be more like 5-20, depending on the difficulty of the action).

I think the game you're thinking of is Fung Shui, which is where I got the idea. Rather than making those stunts easier to do, I think they should do more damage, or have the potential of being more successful while having about the same (or a little more) challenge. I just love the idea of encouraging stuff like that.

To negotiate bonuses with a small die, you can do things like:

Roll 3d10, keep the best.  More dice means higher average result, eventually that too peters out when you have dX/2 dice (5d10, 3d6).  You can also go the other way, roll 3d6 keep the worst.

Use nonlinear advancement:  (triangular) 1 Costs 1, 2 costs 3, 3 costs 6, etc.

Figure out what you want the mechanics to say about the rules of the setting/system. 

The d20 system says:
- There is lots of room for advancement over normal folks
- Luck can make up for lack of bonuses

Storyteller says:
- Luck is less of a factor, but still important
- There is more than Pass/Fail to any action
- Less capable characters cannot get really high results even with luck

i'm on my way out the door as i type this so, i'm sorry if this isn't coherent.

Hey WNightBlade (I forget if you've given a real name we can call you by).

Do powers work exactly like skills, as a modifier to a roll?  Do they enable rolls that other people cannot make?  If I'm in a psychic battle of wills with Doctor Mindfuck and I have no psi powers, can I oppose him, or does he just get a target number to beat?  (I am going to be very annoyed if there is literally nothing I can do as a player to affect his chances of screwing with my character.)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your stunt rule is just spinning wheels.  Tell me where I've got this wrong: shooting a guy is difficulty 7.  I want to ricochet a shot off of a pipe to hit the guy, so the GM declares it a stunt and raises the difficulty to 9.  I roll and get a 12 cause I'm a badass.  Therefore the damage is calculated as if I succeeded by 5 (off of the original difficulty of 7).  But if I had just shot the guy, I still would have succeeded by 5, so that +2 to difficulty only gave me a 20% less chance of hitting.  If I get no advantage for a behavior, I'm not going to repeat the behavior.  In fact, this will make me not want to stunt, since it reduces my chances and gives me no benefit.  Did I miss something?

On choice of dice -- the only thing you need to worry about here is granularity.  That is, is a 1-10 ability range and a 1-20 difficulty range enough for you?  Is there enough difference between KungFu-4 and KungFu-5 -- and between KungFu-1 and KungFu-10 -- to get you what you want?  You'll also have a range of difficulty (11+) that is simply impossible for people with lower skills to succeed at.  Is that still okay with you?

Hello,

To be absolutely clear about something that's often stated incorrectly ...

Sorcerer is the game in which coolness gets you extra dice.

Feng Shui does not have this rule, despite widespread belief to the contrary. In Feng Shui, a cool stunt is harder to do, but if successful, its results are way above the norm or usual application (i.e. whatever you described).

So it sounds like the Feng Shui model is the one you're shooting for.

Best, Ron

Powers would be a little more flexible. I'm not quite sure about the mechanics yet, but the basic idea would be the same - challenge rolls to determine if you use your power the way you want. Only difference is you NEED a power to even attempt such a thing. A layman can try to fire a gun or use a computer without any previous experience or skill. You can't exactly try to throw a fireball or create a flaming demon minion unless you have the magical talent (or cybernetic equipment) to do so.

It really depends on the power. Compared to skills, powers are special. They give players more opportunities to do things, rather than give them a better chance at doing something that anyone can at least try. Though more indirect powers could be a bit more subtle, like damage soaking/ignoring for invulnerability powers, or taking away the unfamiliar weapons penalty for some sort of programmed combat expertise power...

Stunts are a bit of wheel-spinning, I guess... I suppose a best-of rule is better. A good stunt could get two or three die instead of one...

Luck should not be nearly as much of a factor as character skill/ability, which is part of why I don't really like d20. A natural 20 might be great and very forgiving, but I'd rather have a much more tense but even sense of what I can or can't do. Plus it might cut down on the old D&D problems of...

"I swing my sword at five goblins!"
"That's stupid, but roll for attack anyway."
"20."
"Dammit! They all die."

It's not quite as granular, but I think simplicity is more important. By just setting a series of guidelines for different skill and power levels, I think it would give both the GM and the player a strong idea of what their limits and skills are without penning them into either strict min-maxing-encouraging stat accounting or lottery dice-cheerign. (With amusingly hyperbolic endgame levels, and with nonlinear advancement. Computer 1 means you can easily research information, computer 5 means you can hack business web sites, computer 10 means all banks give 0.01% of all transactions to you, etc. Psychic 1 means you can sense feelings and strong thoughts and nudge minds. Psychic 5 means you can control entire crowds. Psychic 10 means that the GM obeys your every command, etc. Of course, you'll be spending maaaaany points on level 10 skills and powers.)

I really liked the old Marvel SAGA system, which did a simialr thing but with cards instead of dice (not sure why, but a d10 can do essentially the same thing as a deck of cards numbered 1-10). That sort of flexibility with guidelines, without blind luck winning the day.

And I'm sorry that I'm unfamiliar with Sorcerer, but I certainly want to check it out now.

I'm not sure that I would drop attributes all together. Sure you may not need a detailed attribute set, but you may need something simple. Maybe just go with Mind, Body, and Spirit stats, that way if no skill is applicable  then you just make an attribute check. Or if you have a better way of hadling something that you don't have a skill for.