I'm creating an RPG without a name. Being of relativilley young age, my experience is very small. This is my third try, where every try seemed like moving through the last 20 years of the industry. I've talked to my friends about it and they just get annoyed, so I've finally come to you people. (exhale) (inhale). Now: My RPG is different in few respects. It is based upon a fantasy world, on the continent of Odin, in the Soverign States. They are bordered by obstacles of expansion: The Dwarven inhabited Crescent Mountains, Elven Forests, and Serpent infested seas to the south. My idea is to incorperate this into a scratchware game which will be sold over the internet. Anyway, it's based upon D6 legends D6 system, but will have another name (It's trademarked). This is NOT STAR WARS DONE A DIFFERENT WAY. Anyway, it is based upon 8 attributes (ability scores, ect.) Strength, Constitution, Coordination, Agility, Intelligance, Intuition, Perception, Charisma. There are combat abilities, which are modified by the appropriate attributes, level, and skills. There is total experience, which determines your level, and allocatable experience, which is allocated to skills. HP, Stamina, and even mana, are represented by D6's. Anyway, another aspect, is the original chart which gives you abilities (magic potential, Super-intelligance,Paladin calling) which makes magic a very special thing. Combat will be made with opposed rolls, rather than how it is handled in other systems, adding a new element of flexability. I could go on for a long time, but I'd like to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism concerning concept and some insight on what I'm assuming that shouldn't. I am far from publishing (-Leaving that to my mom. Yes I still live with my mom.) so don't send me to another thread about that. Anyway, this is where I will make allusions to, whenever I talk about my RPG in other threads. Let the tearing apart and manipulation of what I've stated begin...

Pyron,

I think the fact that you're going to the effort to do this and that you've come to ask other's opinions before jumping into a huge project says a lot, and I applaud you for both.

That said, I think you're aiming for failure. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but - the game you described is available in every hobby store under a couple of different names. There's scads of fantasy games with the name Odin in them somewhere that use dice pools and opposed rolls in combat. (Hell, I wrote one - and it has levels, too.)

I do think you'll probably create a game that you, and hopefully, your group, will really enjoy playing.

We have kind of a tradition around here: when we're working on a new game, we tell what we want play to be like and about. Lists of stats or whatever is great, but I couldn't really see from your post what your game is going to be like. Is it gritty? Is it fantastic? Is it about something in particular?

Last thing:

Let the tearing apart and manipulation of what I've stated begin...

Hey,

I think you might be working from a lot of assumptions about game mechanics that may not ultimately serve your design goals. Roy Penrod started a thread recently that lays out a design approach I think you should consider. Essentially, it starts with you writing an example of play like you see in most non-indie roleplaying games. Read his thread here:

http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1896

Someone who goes by "Pale Fire" actually tried Roy's method, and I for one was impressed with how well it worked to expose what his priorities were and get people talking about mechanics that support them. Read it here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1926

I think it might be just the technique for you. You could do the example of play and post it here in Indie Game Design and hope incisive Forge regulars are motivated by it to help you get under the hood and produce some mechanics that support your goals. If you do that, certainly mention and refer people to Roy's thread so they know what you're hoping for.

Paul

Thank you. When I said:

Let the tearing apart and manipulation of what I've stated begin...

"I've seen that as intelligance increases, happiness decreases. I make lots of graphs."

Pyron wrote: Anyway, it's based upon D6 legends D6 system, but will have another name (It's trademarked). This is NOT STAR WARS DONE A DIFFERENT WAY.

Hey there,

Welcome to the madness that is game design. One thing that impressed me was your acknowledgment that a person's early design efforts usually mirror the history of actual game design through the years, which is true.

My question is very basic: what do the main characters actually do in play? All of the following are generalizations and don't apply to 100% of the cases, but they provide good models for my questions.

In The Whispering Vault, they put a stop to the activities of Unbidden Beings who have invaded human history.

In Tunnels & Trolls, they explore underground complexes and dangerous cityscapes, fighting and killing most of what they encounter.

In Star Wars, they get enmeshed in the missions and counter-missions of Rebels and Empire.

In Orkworld, they hunt and quest to keep their tribe and clan alive.

In Shadowrun, they are paid to carry out espionage and assassinations among a multitude of scheming corporations.

So, in your game, what do they do?

Best,
Ron

Well... The problem is that I'm designing it for a CRPG right now, and only one continent has been created, and it's very closed. O.K. The players options are to do anything. I believe that what you are looking for are conflict points. The main ones that I've created are kinda bad but I'l post them anyway.

Empire: The human empire known as the Soverign States came over from some stupid continent in rebellion, to be rid of oppression and overpopulation. (Kinda like the U.S. really.) They are ruled by a King and is made up of several districts, each with his/her own goal in mind. The king's power comes form the Council of The Wise. That's made up of individuals with power, coming from each of the 5 districts. This could lead to endless power struggles between each of the districts and the political situations concerning everyone else. Another part is the conflict between the States and other races. The humans are trying to expand but are blocked on all sides by different obsticles. North: Elves and their defensive divine magic. East: They came from there. South: The dragon sea is home to many serpents who make expansion cost inefective, and the deadlands past that are home to little life. West: The humans, forcing the Dwarves back as they came, are repeadedly destroyed in ambushes every time they make their way through a pass. So over the centuries (yes centuries) the citizens of each race grow more histile with the stalemate. Could there be peace? Heck if I know.

Magic: In theory, magic was much more powerful, long ago. After time went on, a White Mage (or whatever) decided to stop the Chaos and imprisoned it whithin a stone. This allowed progress to be made, and legends about powerful sorcerers that rulled the world (Sorcerers are powerhouses). Needless to say, if humans can enslave other humans because they are a different color (in real history), what would they do to Mages? Outcasts and rogues, mages are few and weak compared to other RPGs.

This is a very small part of what has been done on the first continent. It's meant to be limited in player action and detail, because it's for our CRPG. I am not saying that I'm creating a CRPG. I'm saying that it might be made into a CRPG. I would not be here otherwise. Oh, and don't be fooled by the psudo-tolkein attitude I've conveyed. Thoes are the ONLY demi-human races I'm using, and I've created others so far. They are the main political conflicts on 1/3 of the first continent of our first world, so don't state the obvious (the obviouse being, that it's too limited). It's still open for change, which is why I'm here. I also know that I didn't directly answer your question, but now I will: The players adventure, mainly in the heartlands which I've not explained here. I'm going for Person vs. Person conflict over person vs. nature (monster or dungeon) conflict. I'm making a strict NO SUPER "YOUR RACE" philosophy. And finally I'm making the skill system the heavy focus. Any questions?

Be here next time as I describe how I went from Classes but without Levels, to Levels without classes...

The players adventure, mainly in the heartlands which I've not explained here. I'm going for Person vs. Person conflict over person vs. nature (monster or dungeon) conflict.

...by specifying that adventuring in your game setting is more 'character-centric' for lack of a better word, I assume that you mean that the environment is one of isolation? That is, so far out there in the wilds that it forces the characters to *rely* so much upon each other that they occasionally conflict with each other. Is that correct (or close)?

And since the heartlands are a focus of what it means to adventure, I will also guess that exploration is one of the main premises of the game?

Jeff

I'm sorry. What do you mean? I meant that the conflicts in my game are person vs. person instead of the traditional person vs. monster. It seams more realistic and interesting. Monsters will be used as plot devices and person-controlled enemies insead as villians. A large portion of my game could be exploration. Let me be more concise. My game is designed to work with almost all environments, but my campaign setting is, as of now, set on a snake shaped continent. The humans are stuck in one region, and much of the game will take place where it isn't stuck. My company has a web-sight but my Administrator is Scratchware. He doesn't really want to do anything untill the summer (in the U.S. it's in about a month). Anyway, once we work on the web sight, I'll post a link and you'll be able to get more access to information about my game.

Pyron, what is being asked is "what do you do".

Forget for the moment (we can come back to it later) what shape your continent is, what kind of mechanics you use, any reference to classes or levels, or any thing similiar to that.

Picture in your head the ideal game. You are the GM, several of your best gaming friends are sitting around the table, and you're mid way through the best evening of gaming you've ever had. What are your doing?

What kind of adventure are you embarked upon?
Who is driving the story forward?
Is the GM in charge of the story and all of the "secret" information which the players gradually uncover and experience at the GM's direction?
Are the players influencing the story, beyond simply saying "my character does X"?

Imagine the coolest scene of the whole night.

Is it a combat scene?
Is it a scene where one of the players introduced something into the plot that mind bogglingly cool.
Is it a scene where a player's character just came to life and really took the lime light?

This is what the questions are getting at. Basically what sort of gaming experience is your game meant to convey. Every gamer has developed his own "world" populated by cultures that are "kind of like Vikings", or "a cross between the Roman Empire and ancient Egypt", etc. Every gamer has played with designing or modifying game mechanics to highlight some area better than their favorite system does.

What makes your game special is not what shape the continent is, or how many unique cultures you populate it with. Its the type of experience that is to be had while playing, and how your rules accomplish achieving that experience.

Once you have a clear vision of that "ideal game session" your goal becomes to dump everything you *think* you know about the "right" way to design game mechanics and instead dedicate your game mechanics to recreating that ideal game session.

Once we know what your vision for the game is we can help evaluate whether the mechanics you come up with are helping or hindering that goal. There is no such thing as a good mechanic or a bad mechanic taken out of the context of what you're trying to accomplish.

Sorry for not seeing you post, Chris. I described the political background because that seemed to be a foundation for other posts. Diplomacy is not centeral in any way. I just wanted to describe the human race for you. Political intrigue is very important to a good campaign, and starting out as a diplomat could be an option. Any way, when you ask what adventuring means, I say, "Good point. I really hadn't considered that." Average: Stop a plot created by a main villian. They would adventure through different territories and interact with the environment so that they could create the circumstances for his/her defeat. The conflict in our CRPG, at this point, is this villian guy and a bunch of other people are trying to get a crystal together so that it could realease all of the demonds it posseses from the past. I didn't write it. This was created about 3 days ago, so it's open for edit. Very open. Example of another story: The humans have discovered one of their colonies beyond the mountains, is under attack. They send your regiment. This would consist of you and 3 other PC soldiers (they could all be unique with different values since there isn't a class system). You travel there, by airship but you're shot down. You then come to the town and it's being destroyed by another race. You help defend, but you also find that they are just trying to take back land that had been stolen form them, and they had tried negociations. The other race had actually tried defending your airship and is being opposed by another race. You save the race but now you have the journey home. Something along thoes lines would be what I'm talking about when I say adventure. I understand that making games too imperial, really limits what can be accomplished, but this is for a CRPG and the system will be designed mainly for another campaign setting.

It sounds like "what you do" is something along the lines of "Fight against terrible odds against grand opposition." And you're leaning towards the PCs being very effective in the great scheme of things (as in World-Changing Heroes).

Pyron, try laying out a few sample games in one or two sentences each. For example:
D&D
- Fight through a dungeon brimming with undead to defeat the lich king.
- The goblin tribes are being brought together by some unknown menace; stop them before they destroy the neighboring human towns.
- Demons, unseen in generations, are rising from the bay. Investigate and put a stop to them.

These sentences lead to a game that focuses on combat, heroicism and fighting against evil.

Call of Cthulhu
- A haunted house, initially thought to be an urban legend, proves to house an ancient, burbling evil. Try and survive the awful discovery and subsequent escape.

Shadowrun
- Mr. Johnson hires a band of shady runners to infiltrate a corporate warehouse and steal a DNA sample.

In short, answer Valamir's question: What do you do?

Sorry. He typed his post at the same time as me.

O.K. To simplify things: I've tried to run through the ideal scenerio thing that was posted (ingenious) and ran into a small problem: I am used to PCs being too stupid... When you mean idealistic, what kinds of things do you mean to be ideal, the GM or the players as well?

I think by ideal he means the whole gaming experience, rather than GMs or Players. Also, you say that you are used to "stupid PCs." I don't understand what you mean by "stupid."

Pyron wrote: Stop a plot created by a main villian

Any way, when you ask what adventuring means, I say, "Good point. I really hadn't considered that."

I've tried to run through the ideal scenerio thing that was posted (ingenious) and ran into a small problem: I am used to PCs being too stupid...

Pyron a quick suggestion. Go and look at a variety of the games in the resource library.

People here can get pretty deep into theory, pretty quickly and a lot of this will be easier if you see some of the theory in practice. Look at games like Inspectres, Sorcerer, The Pool and others. Look at the systems in them and how they encourage a style of play.

Matt

I've done a little bit of that. Anyway I meant to say stupid players, not PCs. I know the difference, but I made a slight mess up. I'll try to clarify the feel of my RPG in the next few sentences.

1. The focus will be on fantasy and awe of the setting. I will in no way try to make my RPG mythos resemble any part of a single culture. Cyclopeses battle trolls where I come from. The games will be rich and plot driven. The GM has the ultimate power and tries to use the players as his pawns. The players will be able to impact the story. It will come out in different ways, but the GM desides on what the main conflict is since the beginning of the game.

2.Combat will be quick, in most cases. You will have a large amount of combat options, each effecting gameplay. However, combat will not last longer than a minute on most occasions (about 20 rounds.) The players will have many more options than most other games. This includes the entire synergy effect of the skill system and the 8 attributes that a player has. Sorry, mechanically I'm going off again. Combat will still be important, actually drilled into your character, instead of skills.

3. Campaigns will have a single objective throughout: Liberate a continent, or stop the threat of the plague, or establish your faith in a new land. Each time a campaign is succesfully completed (you don't die), you are led into a larger campaign, finding that what you've done is just a minute factor of something bigger.

It should be fast, the players should feel small, and they should have fun throughout the adventures which encourage a variety of environments and experiences.

What else should I elaborate on?

Pyron,

What did you mean by 'Combat will still be important, actually drilled into your character, instead of skills'?

Thanks,

Joe.

Characters will actually have combat statisitics instead of each combat action being a skill.

Example: A characters M.D. (Mellee Defense) will be based off of the attribute: Agility and will be modified by coordination. It will not be a skill that you purchased for 10 character points.

The games will be rich and plot driven. The GM has the ultimate power and tries to use the players as his pawns

The focus will be on fantasy and awe of the setting. I will in no way try to make my RPG mythos resemble any part of a single culture.

I think the big issue is that you're trying to design a game to accomodate participants with different goals. By this I mean, GM wants to go one direction, Players want to go another (or some Players want to go X, others go Y). Is this what you mean by stupid?

If this is the case, it is a fundamental problem with the group, not the game. I believe you will have trouble designing a game to solve this problem. Try starting a new gaming group or talking with your group about what you all want out of gaming. If this is not possible, or I'm wrong, let me know!

To address your summary (though I would like to see it condensed further):

Focus on fantasy & setting: So the focus will be on a fantasy setting? How so? Will the Players have a chance to change the setting? Is it a mystery for them to explore? How will your game cause the participants to focus?

GM has ultimate power and tries to use the Players as his pawns: Do you mean the Players and GM are competing for control? If the GM has ultimate power, she won't need to try.

Combat will be quick, in most cases: Sounds like you have a concrete design goal in place. Quick combat with lots of options. Why just combat? Is this a focus of your game?

Each time a campaign is succesfully completed (you don't die), you are led into a larger campaign: Wait, so if you die are you out of the campaign? Or do you mean the PCs achieve the current campaign goal? I see another concrete design goal here: Each campaign (I'm guessing you mean campaign = interconnected series of adventures) leads to a larger-scale campaign.

Most of what you say is true. And I hope that you guys are asking questions about my RPG due to the value of the questions and not a void of answers whitin my short posts. Anyway:

1. I'm a strong believer in illusionism. The player will have complete controll on HOW they accomplish their campaign objectives, but the GM will have complete controll over the objectives.

2. I'm not shure on how specifically to give the sense of awe, except in the design of the world and the listed descriptions whitin the material. I'm not as far into the design of the game as you would think, so any help here would be hot.

3. Zak, you are entirelly correct. The problem is in the group and I've started another thread to discuss it. (Sorry for posting all of my problems but they've been building up for a while)

4. Combat is a focus of my game, as it is a very realistic way of solving problems and interacting with the environment. I don't think that this is so bad if it's done right.

5. You overanalized what I said, and in so doing, infered that if you died you were out of the campaign. I meant that to no degree. I meant that each campaign would elevate you into an even larger campaign. If you died, you would be forced to create a new character, but I think that I speak truthfully that not all campaigns are completed.

That answers some of your questions. Now do you have any suggestions on how I accomlish any of this?

Oop. Hit a nerve.

4. Combat is a focus of my game, as it is a very realistic way of solving problems and interacting with the environment. I don't think that this is so bad if it's done right.

{chuckle} I'm sorry, but with the limited information I've given you, you still are getting a final fantasy vibe. That is remarkably funny, as that is what everyone says. Anyway, to answer more questions:

1. First and foremost. This is my third attempt at a practical RPG. I am creating it for personal use and we are planning to make it into a CRPG. I know how impractical it sounds, but there might be a larger potential market. If everything goes well, we are looking at marketing the RPG on the web. If thoes fail, we could make a local market and sell it somehow, here in town. If ALL ELSE fails, then we plan to give it away in PDF format over the web. Thoes are the current plans.

2. Combat has always been a focus in games, perhaps it's what's leftover from miniratures battles which is what this is based on. But I see it as an ultimate form of cometition. It is such a common theme in humanity that recieves some attention from all people. It also allowes for such a wide array of skills to be used, while allowing a form of an engine that can be a basis for much gameplay. And don't get me wrong. I've said that the MAIN focus of my RPG, in terms of statistics, will be the skill system. I will allow versatility in diplomacy, art and other stuff. It's just that at least 30% of major conflict is combat (feel free to dissagree on this, for I'll support my statement by saying, "Well I meant MAJOR conflict). Combat is an unavoidable theme for fantasy. No need to fight it.

3. Magic: Yes, for god's sake, I have magic... I am trying for a non-magic based universe as much as possible. Magic should be viewed as non-casually as possible. See further details in earlier posts.

(Strictly my opinion)
Eric

Please excuse the line by line, this isn't for the sake of debate, but clarification, so please bear with me...

1. I'm a strong believer in illusionism. The player will have complete controll on HOW they accomplish their campaign objectives, but the GM will have complete controll over the objectives.

2. I'm not shure on how specifically to give the sense of awe, except in the design of the world and the listed descriptions whitin the material.

4. Combat is a focus of my game, as it is a very realistic way of solving problems and interacting with the environment. I don't think that this is so bad if it's done right.

4. Combat is a focus of my game, as it is a very realistic way of solving problems and interacting with the environment. I don't think that this is so bad if it's done right.
......
Combat is an unavoidable theme for fantasy.

O.K. I agree with you. Combat is a nearly unavoidable theme in pseudo-pseudo-tolkein fantasy (which is kinda what I'm going for).

Just to add my $3.37.

Don't confuse Conflict with Combat.
Don't confuse Fights with Combat.
Don't confuse Violence with Combat (see the film Chopper or any of Takeshi Kitano's movies for some perfect examples).

"Combat" (regardless of how it's defined at M-W.com) is a holdover from the hoary days of wargaming (you know, moving Patton and Rommel around on a big map of Africa or whatever). In a roleplaying game, there's going to be some level of identification with the character (unlike Clue or Monopoly or the aforementioned wargame, where the "character" is just a piece denoting your position on the playing field). Even in the most hardcore gamist example of roleplaying, there's going to be some identification (compare and contrast actual play of D&D with actual play of the Dungeon! boardgame).

Combat is an abstract exercise in games. Fights, conflicts and violence are far more visceral and dramatic. To bring up a game with a lot of buzz around it, The Riddle of Steel sounds real visceral to me (which is why I just ordered it). You don't do "combats" in that game...you get caught up in the blood and sweat and stink of fighting. That appeals to me (I already have a character idea in mind for it...).

I dissagree with much of that. I don't believe that it's a hold-over of war-gaming. It's such a common theme in humanity, that it is commonly used un RPGs. I am also setting up a reallativiley versitile combat system, in which more often you can dissable your oponents rather than kill them. Combat is a fun conflict resolution in RPGs because it can be influenced by many special abilities, and can highlight certain plot twists.

Pyron wrote: I dissagree with much of that. I don't believe that it's a hold-over of war-gaming. It's such a common theme in humanity, that it is commonly used un RPGs. I am also setting up a reallativiley versitile combat system, in which more often you can dissable your oponents rather than kill them. Combat is a fun conflict resolution in RPGs because it can be influenced by many special abilities, and can highlight certain plot twists.

Hey,

I also think we're getting off track. The purpose of this thread is for Eric to hash out some ideas he has regarding play. I think those ideas - primarily, what is the game - have been largely resolved.

If not, then I think this thread needs to be clarified: Eric, what are you asking, at this point? Anything specific? Or is it time to hit the notebook and write up some rules ideas?

Best,
Ron

The issue is not that combat isn't an element in this kind of fantasy setting, it's that many games focus on it to the detriment of other equally important aspects. This focus is definitely a holdover from wargames.

To give you an example, consider how combat always seems to get it's own framework (rounds, attacks, damage etc) whereas something like diplomacy often gets one skill if you're lucky.

You mentioned combat often being the province of special powers, I'd suggest looking at something like Exalted, which extends it's special powers to all arenas of conflict. (gotta love that bureaucratic overload power).

Not that you shouldn't go with a combat focus, just that you should consider why you want it.


Matt

Pyron wrote: 1. First and foremost. This is my third attempt at a practical RPG. I am creating it for personal use and we are planning to make it into a CRPG.
...
Thoes are the current plans.

Pryon wrote: 2. Combat has always been a focus in games
...
Combat is an unavoidable theme for fantasy. No need to fight it.

As always, much to respond to. Anyway:

1. I want to clarify my ideas about conflict and combat. Conflict is a common theme in humanity. Combat could also be considered a common theme in humanity. I am making the skill system the main mechanic, because that would and should lead to more conflict and resolution than combat. I also believe that more special abilites and skills could be used in combat than diplomacy. I believe that this is so, because of combat's neccecity to human survival throughout the ages. As for the connection to wargaming: I believe that in 500 years (in a universe where humanity survives) if RPGing survives, that it will still incorperate a large quantity of combat mechanics. It is just that combat is used by so many people for combat resolution and that it IS a theme of humanity (how many wars have we had?) that it will continue all but perpetually.

2. Proffesor Edwards: I have spent the last few posts answering questions. I now, ask the Forgites (or whatever you prefer to be called) to give advice on how to improve my system, and the world. If you don't feel like giving me the benefit of your experience, just make an entire post with links to articles that would help me. That's fine. I'm just trying to survive in an industry that's controlled by brains like you. The only logical way to do this is to mooch off of your knowledge, so here I am.

3. I've done this, as requested, and want to know if you want what I wrote to be posted here. Thanks.

Also, if you want to quote me, it would be appreciated if you would put everything I put, as it would make things clearer whithin my statements.

Thanks.

Hey Eric,

Calling me "Professor" isn't necessary, or even appropriate. I'm not a prof for purposes of interacting at the Forge. Similarly, "Doctor," etc. I have no special social rank here beyond Forum Moderator, which is for content-appropriateness and shouldn't enter debates.

Let's get practical with the game, then. No one will design it for you, but as you say, perhaps some experience can come to your aid.

Let's see ... an RPG is composed of Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color, in no particular order. Also, any of these may be simple or complex or in-between, as well as fixed or flexible or in-between.

Here's an example: most of the above are firmly fixed in my game Elfs, except for Character, which is only a little flexible; and Situation, which is intended to be wildly variable according to certain parameters. All of them are intended to be very simple, especially System.

Let's start there - if I'm reading you right so far, System is going to be fairly solidly fixed. Anything else? For instance ...

Is the game going to be setting-specific, like (say) Earthdawn? Or setting-customized, like early D&D?

Are character types (if there's more than one) going to use different sets of rules or the same single set of rules?

What sort of Color are we talking about? Color includes stuff like Tone - or really anything that heightens the imagination about the other components (Setting, etc). It's best thought of in terms of adjectives: gritty vs. light-hearted, depressing vs. inspiring, funny vs. serious, etc.

Answering all of these is intended to be practical - I'm focusing as well as I can on the needs you've raised, so let us know your answers.

Best,
Ron

P.S. "Control the industry?" Oh, I wish ...

Pyron wrote: 1. I want to clarify my ideas about conflict and combat. Conflict is a common theme in humanity.

Pyron wrote: I have spent the last few posts answering questions.
...
I'm just trying to survive in an industry that's controlled by brains like you. The only logical way to do this is to mooch off of your knowledge, so here I am.

Pyron wrote: Also, if you want to quote me, it would be appreciated if you would put everything I put, as it would make things clearer whithin my statements.

Pyron wrote: 1. I want to clarify my ideas about conflict and combat. Conflict is a common theme in humanity. Combat could also be considered a common theme in humanity. I am making the skill system the main mechanic, because that would and should lead to more conflict and resolution than combat. I also believe that more special abilites and skills could be used in combat than diplomacy. I believe that this is so, because of combat's neccecity to human survival throughout the ages. As for the connection to wargaming: I believe that in 500 years (in a universe where humanity survives) if RPGing survives, that it will still incorperate a large quantity of combat mechanics. It is just that combat is used by so many people for combat resolution and that it IS a theme of humanity (how many wars have we had?) that it will continue all but perpetually.

O.K. If any one wants to, move the topic about Conflict vs. Combat to a new thread, do so. I agree not to speak of it, once more here. Anyway:

Calling me "Professor" isn't necessary, or even appropriate. I'm not a prof for purposes of interacting at the Forge. Similarly, "Doctor," etc. I have no special social rank here beyond Forum Moderator, which is for content-appropriateness and shouldn't enter debates.

Let's get practical with the game, then. No one will design it for you, but as you say, perhaps some experience can come to your aid.

Pyron wrote: And to summerize my RPG, I'll state this," The players, in a pseudo-pseudo-tolkein world use their creativity to get through (mostly people created) problems to solve a political conflict." This could easily change, but that is how I'd summerise it, to this point.

I have reviewed what you've said, and respond simply with this: It's a simulationist game :). I have, in light of your opinions, decided to integrate the combat into the skill system. I have more, but await your responses.

I am also have created a chart that you use to create your character's attributes (ability scores). Each race has "Base scores" which you use, with the chart, to modify. This allows for other races to have a tendency for other races to have different attributes, and allows all races about equal cost when the attribute is at higher levels. This allows different races to be very unuque statistically and not to effect game balance much.
And before you say anything: Yes, it uses a complex chart, but it's just about the only one in character creation. I WILL NOT use complex charts for in-game purposes.