First off, I apologize, since I know there're a million D20 derivatives out there, but I figured I'd post about one I've been thinking over. Without a doubt, others have done things like this, and I more then welcome anyone pointing them out. I don't pretend that this's gonna be some end-all, be-all, unique snowflake of D20 variants, and I'd love to see what people who've done similar have done.

Second, I had this post about half-way done when the power went out, so it might seem curt; I apologize for that, but I'm not typing the whole thing over again, verbatim. :P

I've never liked stock 3.x Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and I never really understood why, until I took a long, hard look at it. My problems basically break down into Feats, Alignment, Classes, and the Combat System. I absolutely abhor the latter, since I prefer more free-flowing, rules-lite combat. Having to essentially use miniatures kills the mood for me. In addition, while I don't mind the spell system, I think it could use a more freeform system.

I've been considering these ideas for a while, but I've never actually put them into practice; it's more like something I've been intending to get around to for a while, and just haven't yet. I figured if any group could give me decent feedback on this, it'd be this board. That way, if there's anything glaring that I'm missing, it can be pointed out. Not to mention any mentions of whether or not it resembles any existing variants, which would also be fantastic.

So, my D20 variant has the following changes in mind;

1) Ability scores are reduced to what, frankly, really matters; Bonuses and Penalties. Each character begins with each Ability Score at 0, and has six points to distribute amongst them. Ability Scores can also be lowered, to a minimum of -3, to give additional points to use elsewhere.

2) Classes are gone; instead, characters get a set number of hit points and skill points, and have to build a character based on those. Hit Points at first level are 10 +/- Constitution, with each level adding the Constitution bonus to Hit Points, minimum of 1.

3) No more base attack bonus; instead, there's a Defense Skill, and a myriad of Attack Skills for each weapon(Long Sword Skill, Spear Skill, et cetera). The Defense Skill acts as a bonus to Armor Class, and the Attack Skill acts as a bonus to attack with the weapon.

4) No long feat list. Instead, there'd be a system in place for creating feats, based on requirements and weather it needs prior feats to be purchased first. The only feats that would come with it are a smattering of ultra-generic ones(Ones so simple or common that anyone is likely to learn them first), and some career trees, which are used to simulate archetypes. For instance, there'd be a Clergy Tree, which begins with some basic priestly things at the bottom, then branches off into dedicated Spellcaster Priest and Martially-inclined Cleric paths. While a character could take both branches with time, it'd allow the character to specialize a bit in their chosen shtick. The idea is to make generic feats be an extension of someones' abilities, instead of just an ability they can learn. Similar, thematically, to Charms in Exalted; there might be only one charm that adds dice, but three Solars develop and do it differently. Which is why there'd be a smattering of simple Feats; hitting better or harder with a certain weapon is something that many warriors aspire for, so there'll be a Feat for increasing damage with a single weapon. The same with increasing your Defense Skill with a weapon, or while unarmored, or while in a specific terrain. Another for gaining bonuses with certain skill sets. They not only serve as examples, but ways for a player to quickly generate a new character without having to build each and every Feat.

In addition, Feats would be bought with Skill Points, allowing a character to either specialize in Feats, or focus on more mundane skills.

5) Alignment would be gone, altogether; the basic mortal is a neutral state, even if they're inclined more towards good or evil actions. Certain beings, however, would have tags attached to them, which is basically a descriptor of extremely strong states. For instance, the Clockwork Messenger of a God-Machine would have the Lawful Tag; the being is so absolutely infused with it that it radiates out from them. A Hellhound would have the Evil Tag, for the same reason.

6) Combat would be completely rewritten. Completely and utterly. In short, it'd become this;
Roll Initiative
First Person declares action
First Person rolls dice, if any
Second Person declares action
Second Person rolls dice, if any
...et cetera...
[Optional] Roll initiative again
First Person declares action
...ad infinium...

I'm not a fan of miniature movements and such. If a wizard wants to cast a fireball, then the DM can say how many orcs he'd hit, and they roll damage. If a person wants to attack, then there's a decent chance they're already in range of the target, unless otherwise stated. And so on.

7) This's a long one, since it's about the only thing that isn't simple or just a variation.

Spellcasting would essentially become a Magic Point system, with an entire Career Tree for learning it. Instead of having a list of pre-set spells, there'd be a collection of ranges(Self, Touch, Melee, Ranged, et cetera), and effects(Damage, Heal, Sense, Manipulate, et cetera). Each effect would, in addition, have various magnitudes. For instance, the Damage effect would have two magnitudes; the die rolled(d4, d6, d8, et cetera), and the number rolled(1, 2, 3, et cetera).

All spells cost Mana, at a minimum of 1 point. This represents the basic binding required to bring the spell together, separate from any other factors.. The Range of Self or Touch is free, meaning that a spell could be cast at those ranges and not accrue any additional cost in Mana. Some effects have free magnitudes. Damage, for instance, gives a default of 1d4 damage for "free". Therefore, for 1 Mana, a Mage could touch someone and inflict 1d4 points of damage.

Someone who spent 3 Mana on the Damage effect could either dump all three into one of the magnitudes, and either roll 1d10 or 4d4 for damage, or distribute them amongst the two, by, for instance, putting one into the die type(Making it d6), and the other two into the number of dice, giving them a total damage of 3d6.

The various feats along the career tree would represent gaining increased mana, and being able to put more Mana into certain effects. There's also an additional Fear that can be purchased, allowing you to gain a reduction on costs for giving the spell an elemental affinity. This makes it cheaper to cast, but more liable to mundane and magical dispelling. For instance, a spell that locks a door by freezing it is cheaper then a spell that just locks it with magical force, but the door can be unlocked through heat applied to it or more easily through an enemy mage dispelling it. Obviously, not all spells can have this applied(A spell that creates flame can't have an elemental affinity for darkness, for instance), but it's possible to apply to a wide range.

There're also two methods to casting; Evocation, and Thaumaturgy. Evocation is done at the moment spellcasting is needed, whereas Thaumaturgy is more controlled, and lets a person achieve long-term and more powerful effects then they could through evocation alone. However, Thaumaturgy, unless prepared ahead of time, is absolutely, completely useless in the middle of combat, whereas Evocation can be fired off immediately.

Yes, I unabashedly stole that last part from the Dresden Files. :P

8) All skills cost 1 Skill Point per rank. The maximum number of Ranks in a single skill is Level + Intelligence + 3. The reason for Intelligence being a factor is explained in the next point;

9) There're still Levels. Increasing a level involves earning Skill Points. When a person earns 9 + Current Level in Skill Points, they gain a level, at which point they gain additional Hit Points and can spend the Skill Points they've gained. Then, to get to the next level, they need to earn more. And so forth. Because I can't figure out a worthwhile way that isn't broken to give a character additional Skill Points per level for a high intelligence, I increased the maximum ranks that a character can have in skills. That allows a player to, theoretically, create a narrowly-focused, yet highly skilled character.

Well, that's what I have so far. What do you think? I think it has the potential to be something that is run lightly, but has enough crunch in the background to allow creation of more light content. If you wanted to make it even more fast-pace, you could require that all characters create their spells before hand and are limited solely to those until they make more between sessions.

Hi igtenio,

In terms of say, to hit rolls, compare the following two situations
A: You need to make this to hit roll or the troll is going to strike you down, go into the farmsted and kill the family that your PC has come to know and love.
B: You need to make a to hit roll or the troll is going to hit you and take away some of your HP before it dies.

You can see how the to hit rules aren't so important in themselves - its the stake they deal in that makes them exciting. Will your mechanics help bring in/support those sorts of stakes? Before you say 'Ah, that's what the GM adds in', really GM's can already do this in many other systems they already know.

A bit of a cut to the chase post. Is that okay?

Aye, cutting to the chase is alright. I did in the first post, after the power going out killed the first draft. :P

I agree, the stakes do matter; but, my answer is still "that's what the GM adds in". And yes, they can do that in other systems that they already know.

But, personally, I find that the stock D20 system detracts from that. It's so rules-heavy at times that it becomes nothing but a numbers game to me. In your example of fighting the troll, in stock D20, the combat system is so rules-heavy to me that it becomes a very simple Win/Lose scenario; in short, it becomes exactly what you described in the B Scenario.

When I was thinking up, initially, a more streamlined and light version of D20, my idea was to make a system that more easily supported storytelling throughout the entire game, instead of jarring breaks where you take out the miniatures.

There're games that support a narrative function in the game rules, and those are fine. I've played a few of them. But no game can fix a bad GM; no matter what the stakes are in a game system, whether it's as numerical as losing Hit Points or as social as fighting to keep your marriage going, a bad GM is going to wreck it.

The idea behind a streamlined D20, for me, is to give a better platform for a GM and players to build those stories on. A bad GM is going to make the big problem be losing hit points, yes, but a good GM is going to give meaning behind the conflict.

I hope that makes sense.

Hi again, Igtenio (could I use your real name - people at the forge usually do),

What I'm reading from your post is not so much supportive (of storytelling) or a better platform, but a 'Gets in the way of the GM less' system. Which could be called supportive or better, I suppose. But it's still getting in the way of the GM, just not as much as before.

Never mind all that 'you can't make a system that fixes a bad GM' stuff. Do you think it's possible for a system to help a good GM? If not, why are you using system at all - at best it would do nothing, or more likely screw over the good GM's efforts.

I think you know system can help a good GM, that's why your still using a system. Your just not sure how it helps. Designing is the difficult process of articulating how the rules can help that good GM.

So, why don't you chuck out the rules entirely? That's the big question. You can answer the question in a broad way and that's cool - but somewhere in that broad answer are the mechanics that will help the GM. If the answers not so broad and instead condensed more to its essence, the closer you'll be to mechanics you actually want. So try not to just answer in broad brushstrokes like "Oh, rules are good sometimes" or such - it doesn't help you and it's not a big deal to me if the question doesn't get answered. It wont be a mystery if you don't answer, it'll just be something that you wouldn't give an answer about. I'm being a little short because many gamers like to think play sort of runs itself in some mysterious way. And thats actually fine - in play. But were designing now - it's time to put aside the mystery and just talk about the very concrete, very unmysterious process behind it all.

Again, if you give a broad answer I wont support your notion it's a mystery that can only be vaguely described. I'll just take it you decided not to answer.

PS: The 'fighting to keep your marriage going' - great example there! Really strong! I think were on the same wavelength when were talking about stakes, which is a good shared ground to have.

I apologize, I hadn't found the option to change the displayed name. I don't mind if you use my real name.

To be honest, I am attempting to answer. But I don't think, necessarily, for one reason or another, the answer you're looking for is the one I have. I'll attempt to answer your question to the best of my ability, but I'm not sure if it'll be what you're looking for in an answer.

The reason I don't chuck out rules entirely is because, in the world that's being played, the players don't have absolute control over everything that happens. Whether it's combat or negotiations, the players can't just say "My fighter decapitates the orc" or "I convince my friend that giving up on his current girlfriend isn't the solution" and have it happen. There has to be a degree of randomness to it.

Sometimes, that randomness is really random; if you swing a sword, then it might or might not hit. You can't talk it into it. You can't talk a doorway into not collapsing; you have to hold it up. You can't catch something vitally important thrown at you by suggesting it makes itself comfortable in your hand. They have various variables attached, to which the hard and fast die-rolls help to play out.

Social actions, on the other hand, are a different story. Some are honest-to-goodness random, with various modifiers that might sway it one way or another. In the ideal courtroom, for instance, it's about how you present evidence and what you have to present. You can do very well with little evidence, if it's particularly damning, or you might need a lot of circumstantial. if you're very suave, you can make your evidence go further then a bumbling newbie. The judge is impartial, and you're working against someone else to prove yourself correct.

Then you come to the folks who aren't impartial, and you're having an action with, but you can sway their opinion. For instance, the characters capture an enemy spy, and interrogate him on the location of a particularly valuable item. You can wear him down with arguments and dice rolls, but he might cave in if you offer amnesty to his wife and child, due to his fears of them dying while in his home country.

And, yet other times, the person is just basically unswayable. You go before the King to ask for assistance for your small kingdom against a force threatening to overwhelm it. Assuming that the King has no desire to go to war with them for assisting you, or to waste men, he cannot be won on arguments alone. This could even be extended, to the few people who are just plain unswayable; presenting evidence that a cult members' diety is just a mortal might be futile, due to brainwashing or plain zealotry, even in the face of their death or the death of people around them.

In short, I feel that the rules for physical actions, and some rules for swaying social ones, are worthwhile in pursuing for this variant because those are very firm; physical actions can't be negotiated with and just happen, and social ones can help, but if a person is unswayable, you can be as suave as you want; it's not gonna help. At which point, other things can be used; magical probing, spying, torture, et cetera.

Can those be accomplished with a system that supports all conflict resolution? Absolutely. But I'm not attempting to turn D20 into a universal conflict resolution system; I'm just trying to make the play style that it supports better for me.

Does that answer your question?

And, no sarcasm intended, but if The Forge is primarily intended for those sorts of games, I didn't know. I was under the assumption that it was for all games undergoing design, not merely those of an indie flavor. If I mistook it for something which it isn't, then I apologize.

As you said, a hundred (or thousand...) people have thought about this.  I spent about a year thinking about it, until i decided that designing a different system from scratch suited me better.  I'll pass along some of my thoughts, which may or may not go the direction you want.

Gary wrote:
So, my D20 variant has the following changes in mind;

1) Ability scores are reduced to what, frankly, really matters; Bonuses and Penalties. Each character begins with each Ability Score at 0, and has six points to distribute amongst them. Ability Scores can also be lowered, to a minimum of -3, to give additional points to use elsewhere.

Gary wrote:
2) Classes are gone; instead, characters get a set number of hit points and skill points, and have to build a character based on those. Hit Points at first level are 10 +/- Constitution, with each level adding the Constitution bonus to Hit Points, minimum of 1.

Gary wrote:

3) No more base attack bonus; instead, there's a Defense Skill, and a myriad of Attack Skills for each weapon(Long Sword Skill, Spear Skill, et cetera). The Defense Skill acts as a bonus to Armor Class, and the Attack Skill acts as a bonus to attack with the weapon.

Gary wrote:

4) No long feat list. Instead, there'd be a system in place for creating feats, based on requirements and weather it needs prior feats to be purchased first. The only feats that would come with it are a smattering of ultra-generic ones(Ones so simple or common that anyone is likely to learn them first), and some career trees, which are used to simulate archetypes. For instance, there'd be a Clergy Tree, which begins with some basic priestly things at the bottom, then branches off into dedicated Spellcaster Priest and Martially-inclined Cleric paths. While a character could take both branches with time, it'd allow the character to specialize a bit in their chosen shtick. The idea is to make generic feats be an extension of someones' abilities, instead of just an ability they can learn. Similar, thematically, to Charms in Exalted; there might be only one charm that adds dice, but three Solars develop and do it differently. Which is why there'd be a smattering of simple Feats; hitting better or harder with a certain weapon is something that many warriors aspire for, so there'll be a Feat for increasing damage with a single weapon. The same with increasing your Defense Skill with a weapon, or while unarmored, or while in a specific terrain. Another for gaining bonuses with certain skill sets. They not only serve as examples, but ways for a player to quickly generate a new character without having to build each and every Feat.

In addition, Feats would be bought with Skill Points, allowing a character to either specialize in Feats, or focus on more mundane skills.

Gary wrote:

5) Alignment would be gone, altogether; the basic mortal is a neutral state, even if they're inclined more towards good or evil actions. Certain beings, however, would have tags attached to them, which is basically a descriptor of extremely strong states. For instance, the Clockwork Messenger of a God-Machine would have the Lawful Tag; the being is so absolutely infused with it that it radiates out from them. A Hellhound would have the Evil Tag, for the same reason.

Gary wrote:
6) Combat would be completely rewritten. Completely and utterly. In short, it'd become this;
Roll Initiative
First Person declares action
First Person rolls dice, if any
Second Person declares action
Second Person rolls dice, if any
...et cetera...
[Optional] Roll initiative again
First Person declares action
...ad infinium...

Gary wrote:
7) This's a long one, since it's about the only thing that isn't simple or just a variation.

Spellcasting would essentially become a Magic Point system, with an entire Career Tree for learning it. Instead of having a list of pre-set spells, there'd be a collection of ranges(Self, Touch, Melee, Ranged, et cetera), and effects(Damage, Heal, Sense, Manipulate, et cetera). Each effect would, in addition, have various magnitudes. For instance, the Damage effect would have two magnitudes; the die rolled(d4, d6, d8, et cetera), and the number rolled(1, 2, 3, et cetera).

All spells cost Mana, at a minimum of 1 point. This represents the basic binding required to bring the spell together, separate from any other factors.. The Range of Self or Touch is free, meaning that a spell could be cast at those ranges and not accrue any additional cost in Mana. Some effects have free magnitudes. Damage, for instance, gives a default of 1d4 damage for "free". Therefore, for 1 Mana, a Mage could touch someone and inflict 1d4 points of damage.

Gary wrote:
9) There're still Levels. Increasing a level involves earning Skill Points. When a person earns 9 + Current Level in Skill Points, they gain a level, at which point they gain additional Hit Points and can spend the Skill Points they've gained. Then, to get to the next level, they need to earn more. And so forth. Because I can't figure out a worthwhile way that isn't broken to give a character additional Skill Points per level for a high intelligence, I increased the maximum ranks that a character can have in skills. That allows a player to, theoretically, create a narrowly-focused, yet highly skilled character.

Well, that's what I have so far. What do you think? I think it has the potential to be something that is run lightly, but has enough crunch in the background to allow creation of more light content. If you wanted to make it even more fast-pace, you could require that all characters create their spells before hand and are limited solely to those until they make more between sessions.

Hi Igtenio,

I fully understand where you are coming from as I went through this too.

I think at this point it is a very bad idea to go in details through your ideas in your first post.

And I think Callan has alluded to what I think is the real issue for you:

Why do you play? What makes the game fun? When are the (3.X) rules getting "in the way"? What should grant XP (in your system)? What kind of behavior do you want the players around the table to have the most?

Once you get a solid graps of the "why I ask these questions", then you'll know how to design your game.

For the record, I'm working on a silimar system (rules light classless generic D&D fantasy) but it will definitly NOT be d20. The attack and defense skill system I though of is similar to yours. So if, in forge jargon, we find that you want a system that promotes "story now" kind of play, we might e able to join our effort!

Sebastien

My, this's gonna be epic. :P

Bastoche;

I'm answering yours' first, since it doesn't really require quoting. :P

For me, I play for two reasons; I enjoy telling stories, and playing games. Probably seems like a simplistic answer, but it really drives my reasoning behind this. I like storytelling in a game, but I don't like the randomizer-less corroborative storytelling. I don't mind systems which are diceless, but I've played with a group of people who went completely rules-less, and it just didn't do it for me. And I enjoy what I believe would be called "gamist" systems. But not to the extent that storytelling should be completely removed. I like, for instance, rolling dice and defeating bandits hiding in a nearby ruin...and then later the same game dealing with those consequences. Maybe they were citizens of a nearby kingdom, and the King things I slaughtered them in cold blood. Maybe they were doing it to feed their families, and I have to either do something to help, or deal with walking away and the consequences of that.

So, maybe the best system for me could be described as "Narrative, with a crunchy Gamist Center"? :P

I feel that the stock 3.x rules get in the way when it over-deludes my ability to create and play a character in a flood of rules. I feel, frankly, there're too many in play, especially combat. When I sit down to play an RPG, I want to be able to tell a story while also rolling dice to resolve some conflict(Not all). That gets ruined when half to three quarters of a game session are taken up by combat. And it isn't necessarily the systems' fault; I've played Neverwinter Nights, and I know that, with a computer, 3.x runs decent combat. But when it comes to people, who have to manually do math, look up powers, move miniatures, describe a situation, argue about rules, et cetera, it gets bogged down. For me, it kills storytelling when the following happens;

GM: The villagers are being plagued by bandits hiding in a nearby ruin.
Me: I travel out there and see what's going on.
GM: A bandit spots you! Roll initiative!
*An hour later*
GM: Alright, only one's left cowering in the corner. He begs you to spare his life, since he and his fellows were only trying to steal back the grain that the village stole from theirs.

Obviously, that's simplified, since if that was verbatim, there're issues beyond system to deal with. :P

But it's jarring to suddenly go from storytelling and intrigue to tactical miniatures gaming. Combat should be as quick-paced as possible, while still allowing some fuzzy tactical options. There's a big difference between deciding to cut the ropes of a rickety bridge and being told "Alright, this round, you race across the bridge to the other side to do it. Then the enemy...", and being told "Alright, you can only move six squares, and since the rope is 8, you have to move across six and wait for the next round, oh, and since you're not doing blah, you're giving the archers a bonus to attacking, and you had to run by one of the enemy to get there so he gets a free Attack of Opportunity...".

Some people probably enjoy that. I'm just not one of them.

So, I guess, in short, you could say that I want something gamist enough to satisfy my urges to roll dice, while still narrative enough to let me tell real stories with it, without one getting in the way of the other.

jag;

First off, I really appreciate you commenting on each section. I think the more clearly I can describe them before I begin putting them on paper, the smoother it'll go, on top of the obvious "Why not do X instead of Y?" questions.

jag wrote:
Simplifying abilities just to the bonuses is standard and good.  I might suggest that a +3 is "better" than three +1s, and that a +2 -1 is "better" than a +1.  By better, i mean gamist players will take a +3 Strength and -2 Charisma for their fighter, and have a more powerful character over all.  One way to change this is to make it more expensive to go from +1 to +2 than it is to go from +0 to +1.

jag wrote:
I found ditching classes to be somewhat challenging to balance correctly. I also find it strange that a combat-oriented character with ave con and a non-combat oriented character would become equally 'tough' with each level.  Ie, some grizzled war veteran should be able to take more punches than a learned sage (in my conception).

jag wrote:
One thing to note in your HP proposal above is that you remove a significant portion of the penalty in having a negative constitution -- you get the same hp/level if you have +1 con as if you have -3.  An alternate suggestion is that you get a certain amount of hp per "rank" of your base attack bonus, or similar combat skills.  The number of hps is affected by your con.

jag wrote:
It seems counter to your desire to make it rules-lite to remove BAB and replace it with myriad skills.  It's also a change which doesn't seem to have much gamist rational.  I would instead propose the opposite -- lump those all into one or two combat skills (including the hp suggestion above), with specialties for given weapons coming from your feat trees.  Since the "Combat" skill would generally be more powerful than, say, Jump, one might require each rank to be bought with more skill points.

jag wrote:
The devil's in the details.  I found making new feats for a gamist system hard -- there's a reason wotc have spent many person-years playtesting their feat choices.

jag wrote:
Again, standard and good.  I still don't understand why alignments are in d&d.

jag wrote:
Wait -- this seems exactly like d20 is currently (modulo unstated details).  What change are you proposing?

jag wrote:
I agree, tho, that d20 combat is one of it's weakest bits -- it's all grind and little tactical choice for players (unless you are a spell caster).  Reforming it is, i think, hard (and one of the bits that made me give up and start a new system).

jag wrote:
Again, standard and good.  But the devil's still in the details.

It's interesting that magic in d20 d&d isn't... d20.  One minimal-modification way to do this is to give wizards (say) 8 magic skill points per level, and make 8 more skills (one for each school).  Then casting a spell involves making a skill check (with a dc of, say, 10+2*spell level).  Each cast costs maybe (2*spell level - 1) mana.  This isn't as free-form as would be nice, but it's an easy first stage, and builds in specialists/etc automatically.

jag wrote:
How do people get skill points?  From experience points?

Also, what of saves?  My rough calculation is that giving each character 2 "save points" at "0th" level, and 1 "save point" per level beyond that, to be placed in any save they wish, gave a total number of "save points" similar to that of the standard classes.  But what do you use levels for anyway, if you already give skill points independently?  Just for combat related stuff and feats?

It seems to me that your understanding of "gamism" might not be perfect. Many things you say seems contradictory to gamist play IMO.

Gamism is about challenges and stakes. Story is not a feature, it's an excuse to have challenges. In D&D it's mostly combat but there could have enigmas, maze and stuff like that. The point is you can take the challenge and if you make it you win (something) and if you don't you lose (something). If you choose not the take up the challenge, you maintain status quo.

On the other hand, narrativism is not about diceless, corroborative, rules-less "storytelling". It's about ACTUALLY letting the player have their characters do "whatever they want" while still acheiving a story. You need rules for that.

Which takes us to that randomizer issue.

I think you almost get "it" but not quite IMO:

The reason I don't chuck out rules entirely is because, in the world that's being played, the players don't have absolute control over everything that happens. Whether it's combat or negotiations, the players can't just say "My fighter decapitates the orc" or "I convince my friend that giving up on his current girlfriend isn't the solution" and have it happen. There has to be a degree of randomness to it.

Gary,

I can see your justification for keeping physical action rules (and some social rules). But it doesn't describe why you've thrown out the idea of rules which introduce stakes to the game. Describing how you can't hit with a sword just cause you wanna, doesn't answer why you've thrown out the idea of having rules that introduce a rocky marriage, for example.

No worries if you don't want to describe that, just offering it as something to think about. But the length and depth of your post on it makes me think you do want to describe why you've turfed the idea of rocky marriage rules. But despite wanting to describe why, you've declined to answer and described an unrelated subject. But again, if you don't want to describe why, that's cool. Just offering it because in practical terms I think it might be useful to you to think about.

Side note: I think terms like gamist or narrativist don't need to be brought in. The more you think about the issue your trying to tackle, the clearer it will become how that issue should be tackled - ie, through a nar, gamist or sim means. Think about the issue(s) first and foremost - everything else becomes more clear after that.

Gary,

While I'm not aware of a game that does everything yours does, there are three I can think of that do part of it, and they might make good resources for you.

True20 is a Green Ronin system that uses Modifiers (-2, +4, etc.) instead of the standard ability scores of the d20 System. They also do away with classes, at least in Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition (which was one game that led to True 20, and the combat rules are much looser and don't require miniatures.

Modern20 is a more streamlined version of the d20 Modern rules.

Star Wars Saga Edition is also a very stream-lined set of the d20 System rules, and possibly the predecessor to D&D 4. I like crunchier combat, but it takes a lot of the rules out of the way.

I hope this is helpful, and good luck with your game.

David

I would definitely look at some of those alternate D20 games.  Mutants & Masterminds, for example, does a great job at doing away with the BAB progression and AC nonsense in a very elegant way.  It also dispenses with HP, which I like.

Unfortunately M&M retains the feature of 3E D&D combat that I personally think makes it so bad.  The action structure in 3E D&D is just awful.  The entire "Move Action + Standard Action" combined with a really long list of specific actions that fit in those slots and then topped off with Attacks of Opportunity... it's just a lot of stuff that takes time, isn't interesting or meaningful and doesn't model reality very well.  Maybe that didn't need to be said since you don't plan to use many of those features...

As an aside, I think D&D retains alignment because the concepts of "Protection from Evil" and "Detect Evil" have a very evocative feel and at least some grounding in fantasy fiction.  It's difficult to reliably have effects like that without Evil (and it's brethren) being a defined characteristic.

Bastoche,

I will think on it.

I'll give the best answer I can, but I warn you, I'm long-winded. :P So, I'm going to do two things; give you an answer to the question, and then expound on it. Obviously, you can ignore the latter, and that's fine. :P

Bastoche wrote:
Why do you play?
a) Because I enjoy making more powerful and becoming better and better at what he's good at.
b) Because I like to exploring a theme with the other players through our character.
c) Because I like overcoming challenges with a certain amount of risk
d) Because I like to make significant choices for my characters that will either greatly affect the ongoing story, the future of my character or both.

Bastoche wrote:
What makes the game fun?
a) When 20s are rolling as quickly as orcs heads.
b) When you witness an event where a fellow player must ponder to make a though choice
c) When the scenes (or encounters) "really matter" for waht will come next
d) Designing a character that is good or the best at a given task

Bastoche wrote:
What should grant XP (in your system)?
a) good so-called "roleplay"
b) killing monsters
c) going along with the GM's "big thing"

Bastoche wrote:
What kind of behavior do you want the players around the table to have the most?
a) making good tactical decisions during scenes
b) designing characters that fits well with the others from a tactical standpoint
c) agreeing beforehand on what the campaign will be about and make characters accordingly. "be about" being a specific short or medium or long term "story goal" or upholding an ideal.
d) Having players make characters that are ticking time bomb on a psychological/moral standpoint.

Bastoche wrote:
Now I'm describing my project: It's a game (set in D&D fantasy setting. For us it will be Forgotten Realms) about a players defined common goal, character growth and action. It's also about good and evil and the fact that everyone has some of each in them. It's rules light and I hope that a single skill-based task resolution mechanic will cover all situations: Declare intent. Declare Task. The GM set conscequences for failure and sets the obstacle. That's it.

Hi Gary,

I don't think you want to not answer, but you still declining to do so - my sentence structure was awkward in the last post. I'll quote myself.

Describing how you can't hit with a sword just cause you wanna, doesn't answer why you've thrown out the idea of having rules that introduce a rocky marriage, for example.

In terms of say, to hit rolls, compare the following two situations
A: You need to make this to hit roll or the troll is going to strike you down, go into the farmsted and kill the family that your PC has come to know and love.
B: You need to make a to hit roll or the troll is going to hit you and take away some of your HP before it dies.

You can see how the to hit rules aren't so important in themselves - its the stake they deal in that makes them exciting. Will your mechanics help bring in/support those sorts of stakes? Before you say 'Ah, that's what the GM adds in', really GM's can already do this in many other systems they already know.

I agree, the stakes do matter; but, my answer is still "that's what the GM adds in". And yes, they can do that in other systems that they already know.

The behavior aspect is IMO central to the system. The rules should be written to reinforce that behavior.

Since you're talking about D20, I'll consider the behavior expected for that system. The way 3.X is designed, you CAN'T have a "all fighter" party unless some house ruling. The game expects that A) the party consist of the typical 4 characters fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. B) that each player "tweak" their character so that the are good at what their class should be good at and that the don't "overlap" in skills too much. C) that each player master the combat rules to execute the combat efficiently.

It seems to me that what most if not all D20 systems supports does not interest you at all. Therefore, I think it's a bad idea to use D20 as your starting point.

The behavior issue is due to the obvious fact that you can't play the game alone. You must be at least 2. And as soon as more than one person are to play, they must agree beforehand on what "kind" of game they are to play. The rules serves this purpose. It writes down how the players are to play to make the game enjoyable. Now this necessitate 2 things: 1) that the rules really "forces" the player to play how they should and 2) that ALL players agree on that "this is how we should play". The expected GM's behavior is to provide encounters (typically fights) with the appropriate CR, to give treasure according to the DMG table and so on and so forth.

So. The next step for you is to make sure that your fellow players answer roughly the same as you on my questionnaire above. Then, you should probably take a good look at the articles and at this website. If you wanted a stripped down D20 version of D&D 3E, you'd be on the right track with your first post but since you want the also change the purpose of the rules, IMO you're better off starting from scratch completely or maybe trying to find an existing game that fits your style. Writing a game is hard enough work, you're better off making sure what you want to acheive with the rules before sitting down to write it.

Hi!
  Gary, have you seen this?
http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Perfect20_2006.pdf
  It has some of the stuff you are talking about already, FYI...

  I think what Callan is talking about has merit. Specifically, we are in a grey area when this subject comes up, no? What I mean is, the Player is in charge of his character and what his char says and does. And the GM is in charge of everything else. BUT, this is an area where these to touch and co-mingle. In other words, why does the PC's wife want to leave him? It had to be because of something the PC did or didn't do, no? And what id the player is not interested in this subplot? Shouldn't they have some control over this? I am not sure how I would make rules for this type of interaction, but if you feel that is a story element you want in your game, then you should try to codify when it is kosher and when it is crossing a line, no?

  Also, have you looked into conflict resolution? Meaning that instead of rolling for a task (I pick the safe), you roll for the conflict behind the task (I want to steal the Counts secret documents). If you have and are not interested, that's fune, but if you haven't or don't know what it is, it might be worthy of discussion here...

  Finally, I think that social conflicts should have a rules system. I think that there is skills, "weapons" (of a sort) and defenses that enter into social conflict that could be modeled fairly easily with your existing rules. You say that once someone has made up there mind, there is no changing it, but there are tons of examples in real life where that is just not true. Going into an electronics shop to get a cheap TV and coming out with one that requires financing. Going into a car dealer to get the car you researched and found on-line and leaving with a "better" car. Deciding to leave a man because he treats your poorly, but staying because he apologized and promised never to do it again...
  Life is full of people finding our social and mental weaknesses and exploiting them for their own gain. This should be possible, even preferable in a proper fantasy setting... And if you don't think so go back and read some of the classics. There is a lot of people thinking and weaseling themselves out of trouble...

  Anyways, sorry about the long post, but I sure hope it helps! Good luck man!

Hi there,

I think that you might get real pleasure from checking out the 3rd edition of the game Talislanta (1992) that Jonathan Tweet designed. Because basically, that's the chassis upon which D&D 3.0 was built (by Tweet and Monte Cook), and what you're doing with this thread is sort of stripping that process back down to the chassis.

What I'm hoping for is that you'll see a game which, I think, was written very much from the same philosophy that you're presenting here, and which will be a source of great inspiration. Instead of using like/unlike D&D as the creative process, you can examine your options relative to how it was done in Talislanta.

Best, Ron

Ron is right about Taslantia. Really cool rules lite system. 

I started to do a simplified version of the D20 system mixed with the 1974 rules (the little 3 books plus Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Eldridch Magic, Chainmail) with a bit of my own stuff. I wanted all the good things taken out of each version of the rules yet still leaving it as simple as the 1974 version.

You have the six attributes and that's what you play with. The attribute rolls are used for Attacks, Saves, Skills depending on what your race and class is. No skill or feats only a story.

There are HP and AC.

You pick out 2 primary attributes that you get +1 every level. Two secondary that you get +1 every 2 levels. Two minors at +1 every 4 levels.

A few examples of the rules were Fighters get to use all weapons and armor and get a bonus critical hits (from x2 dam to x3 damage) every few levels. Barbarians get to cleave enemies equal to their level +1.

Monsters have AC, HP, and Movement with only a little bit of details such as description and damage done. Monsters get a default +1 every 2 levels to skill,combat, and saves unless otherwise noted.

I had got it started on a yahoo group called CFRPD20 but I started working out of town and it kinda died.

I am glad to see that there are others out there wanting to do this from the response.

There is Basicfantasy (Free) and Castles and Crusades out there if you have not looked at those yet.