Okay, this is my first post on The Forge. I think I'd better introduce Myself first. My name is Jef, 30 yo, schoolteacher in the north of France, roleplayer since the early nineties. I'm tinkering with my own homebrew generic system in order to save myself the hassle of learning new ones. This system will also be used in the Citizen H project, but I will save thos topic for another thread.
My goal is to design, not the perfect system, but the one that fits my gamemastering style perfectly. Right now I have designed the basics of it, and you could say it is a mix of the dice mechanics of Savage Worlds and the type of freeform character creation system you find in Robin D. Law's systems.
Everything revolves about Traits. Traits are anything that makes your character stand out, be it natural gifts like strenght or beauty or spirit, skills like nuclear physics, sudoku, fencing or bycicle riding, useful contacts, rank in an organisation (priest, colonel, etc), useful possessions (mithril coat, lightsaber...) or creatures (monkey, tiger, familiar, djinn, whatever).
Every Trait is rated by a dice type. D4 is lame, d6 is average, d8 is good, d10 is outstanding, d12 is awesome, d20 is godlike. You try to roll high. The dice expolde. Every Trait you don't have on your sheet is d6 by default.
It's coming out pretty well at the moment, but a friend of mine (co-author of the Citizen H project) told me that I needed to make a difference between broad traits (more expensive at character creation) and specialised traits (cheaper), and between permanent traits and temporary traits (you could always lose a friend or a possession).
The thing is, I can't see how I could do that without the system getting to complicated (I'm more into streamlined, free-form, rules-lite gaming). Any advice?
And please, pretty please, help me find a better title!
PS: Please excuse my poor English, on the account of me being French!

If any trait not listen is a D6, why would I want to name a trait that's a D4?

Aloha Van,

Remember that you're making this game for your own gamemastering style.  You may want to try it the simple way before adding in any extra complexity.  If problems with these issues arise through play, you can fix them for future games.  That said, if you'll allow me to make a few assumptions about the type of roleplaying game you'll be running with this system, here are my humble thoughts and opinions on the issues themselves. 

First, you've got to think about how, mechanically, your system supports the difference between broad and specialised, as well as the difference between temporary and permanent.  If your game recognizes no mechanical difference between these factors, it is problematic to introduce pricing differences based on them.  That is, even one's learned swordsmanship abilities can be taken away by amnesia, if that is a valid event in your game.  Only if your game supports the permanence of permanent traits, as well as the real likelihood that temporary traits will be denied to the player some time in the game, only then do you need a price difference.  And only if your game mechanically prevents a character from using a specialised trait in a situation demanding a broader trait, only then would you need a price difference.

I have found that some systems do not provide an actual mechanical difference here (beyond perhaps a suggestion) to support the distinctions that your friend suggests.  And those systems work just fine.  Then again, some systems do discriminate mechanically on these bases, and provide a difference in cost, and those systems work just fine, too.

All of that said, differentiating might not be too hard to implement.  You could do it with simple math.  Perhaps if broad traits cost 1 point per step, then specialised or temporary traits could be two-thirds of a point per step, and a trait which is both narrow and temporary could be half a point per step.  But that's just one way of doing it, and of course assumes that you're mechanically supporting the difference between the traits.

-J. Scott Timmerman

Well, first of all, thanks for the feedback.

To Krippler: I forgot to explain this in my first post, but there is actually a reason why you should want a d4 Trait. Some other systems let you take "Flaws" for your character in exchange for a few extra creation points. Taling a Trait at d4 (a Trait in which you'll be weaker than average) is a way to give your alter ego a weakness. The incentive to doing that is that it will grant you a bonus elsewhere.

To Jason Scott Timmerman: I don't mind being called Van, really. After all, it is a name I have chosen. Jef is not my real first name either, just a nickname for "Jean-François". Thank you for trying to adress my problem. I'm still pondering it. Sticking to my first idea would keep the system simpler. But there could be opportunities for abuse. After all, Traits like Pilot (Helicopter) or Science (Nuclear Physics) shouldn't default at d6.They should be strictly restricted to characters that have the Trait on their sheet. But that can be ruled by GM fiat.

The level of broadness of Traits could also be treated this way: in the character creation process, the GM could just refuse a Trait that is too broad and suggest splitting it into more reasonable Traits.

In fact, I'm more inclined to keep all Traits at the same cost and assume that my system will be played only by people who will come up with balanced, reasonable and interesting character concepts, and who will gladly accept any limitations I would impose them. I enjoy the luxury of living in a town large enough to be able to deny the acces to my table to gamers who are not in that set of mind. In fact I game only with friends and if I were to play with all the people I want to play with, I would have to run two or three different campaigns simultaneously...My problem is more having to choose between them, knowing that some will be left out, even if they would be valuable contributors. There are only 24 hours in a day, and two days in a weekend...

Of course, I'm designing the system as if it could be found on a gaming store shelf and be a good purchase for any gamer, but you can't write THE book that will appeal to everyone. My game will be adaptable to any setting, but not to any gaming style. I emphasyze the use of common sense, the acceptance of GM Fiat, the stress of creating a story over bookkeeping and maths.

As for the permanent or temporary nature of Traits, I tend to thing it would not really need extra rules either. It could be integrated in the story. If have an example of how it could be manage, but you have to know that characters will have a special set of Motivation Traits, which will act as a pool of "fate points" you can useto boost dice rolls when important things in your character's life are at stake. So let's say, in the course of the game, that your Character is robbed of an important item (his ancester's sword has been stolen) or that a NPC he cares for is killed. I, as a GM, could give him back the creation points he invested in this non-permanent Trait so that he can buy a new Motivation (Revenge) instead. Of course, once he's had his revenge, the points are lost, but I think it makes sense in a dramatic way. A tragic hero obsessed with revenge has a feeling of emptiness after he has slain his nemesis.

Well, I may have been too talkative, but that could help you understand the frame of mind I am in while designing those rules.

Thank you for your concern, anyway. I may add that even if my first draft is written in French, I could translate it in English if I have reason to think someone would be interested in reading it. My plans are to use this system for the Citizen Hero: A new Deal project. It would be a pulpy, pre-Supers game set just after the 1929 crisis. Players are just normal, human citizens with no supernatural powers, who just freak out, desing and sew a costume and go out in the night to right wrongs and kick some gangster ass. Then they gradually get involved in the coming World War and get to kick some Nazi butt Nazis will have superscience and Lovecraftian sorcery on their side). Think of The Rocketeer mixed with the prologue of the Hellboy movie, on a Great Depression background, with a strong emphasis on the "sitcom' aspects of a hero's private life. I think I should write another thread dedicated to it.

I'm also toying with the idea of a "Harry Star Wars at the Jedi School" project, a Star Wars campaign in which all PCs start out as Younglings and then grow up and get gradually involved into the movies storyline.

Oh! I forgot to mention that I think "Anydie" is quite a lame title. And as I intend to first write it as a stand-alone, generic system, I need a name for the ruleset itself. A better name. Feel free to suggest!
By the way, call me a N00b, a Lamer or whatever, but I still can't figure out how to edit my posts...

Hello Jef

Forge is probably a better place to look for ideas to link your mechanics to your game's goals, and not so good for getting help with the most awesomest title ever. For the latter, I would perhaps look to some of the other forums out there, where the creative color is more in the focus.

Regarding your traits:

As already said, it all depends on what you want to accomplish with your game. I suggest not trying to make your "core mechanic" fit every purpose, but rather to build it with the specific goals of the 1929 setting in mind. The "core" will be easy enough to adapt to other settings and situations later, and you avoid the pitfall of trying to create a “generic” system that will ok for most things, but not really, really good for anything.

Giving players D6 if they do not have any applicable traits indicates to me that you might be really thinking more about skills than traits*. Traits tend to be used more in an "additive" way, that is, they give some kind of bonuses where they apply. Your examples (Pilot/Helicopter and Science/Nuclear Physics) definitely give out the same "skills" vibe, which I would avoid if you really want to get away from the categorized world of most skill systems.

If you want no mechanical restrictions on the breadth of the traits, you could include a guideline that all traits should be “reasonably specific”, and then depend on group consensus to define what that means in practice. Group consensus could translate into a rule like the “if any one player objects, then it is not ok” approach used in Dogs in the Vineyard for trait activation.

As an alternative, having no restrictions on the breadth of the traits could be backed up by some mechanic that rewards interesting traits, i.e. traits that other players will engage with. This starts from the assumption that broad traits are more boring. An example of this approach is Prime Time Adventures, where cool traits lead to cool things happening, which in turn result in the player getting fan mail. Another example is Fate/Spirit of the Century, where interesting aspects get compelled more often, resulting in the player getting more Fate points.

Another possibility is to restrict the times you can use the traits.  This depends on the traits being more add-ons than basic skills, and it spotlights the instances when the traits are actually used. If the number of uses per session is relatively small, this takes away the distinction between broad and narrow traits, as clever players will be able to find a way to use even the most narrow traits a couple of times during a session – and while they are doing this, they will usually drive the game in an interesting direction. An example of this approach is again PTA.

Limited uses could also be used to address the question of temporary traits. A temporary trait could have a number of times it can be used, period, instead of a number of uses per session. The player of the character with such temporary traits would then be responsible for narrating the use of the trait in a way which justifies the loss of that trait after last use. (Can’t think of an example system, here, unless you count the one I have brewing at the moment.) For this to make sense, or seem “fair”, temporary traits should be somehow easier to gain than permanent traits, or they could actually be negative traits like “wounded, deduct D6”.

One more alternative is to require that a trait is first used as a penalty before it can be used as a bonus. That way you have a price to pay every time you want to use a trait, and broad/narrow has less significance. This, I think, is the approach used in Full Light, Full Steam.

If you decide to assign point cost to traits, you could consider a system like that used in Everway, where Powers have a cost of 0-3 depending on how many times you answer “yes” to the following questions: Is it major? Is it versatile? Is it frequent? It is much easier to have a common agreement on the answers to these questions than getting an agreement on a more arbitrary, GM fiat cost.

To finish, I would like to reiterate the suggestion that you tie the mechanic to the setting and the goals of the game. For example, requiring that the traits are first used as a penalty before they can be used as bonus could be a good way of emphasizing how your average people will repeatedly run into problems if they decide to dress up in stupid costumes to fight crime, using the latest experimental gadgets, no less.

(* I know that there are no strict definitions for “skills” and “traits”. I am referring to the way these terms are usually used in the games I know.)

Oh yes, you cannot edit posts on the Forge. The idea is that you should really compose the post somewhere else, with good spell-checking capabilities, and read it a couple of times before posting, rather than quickly post some crap and rely on the possibility of editing the post later.

Well, Mikael, although I don't think I'll take everything you said for granted, I must admit that you really gave me food for thought.

I agree that the best rulesets are the ones designed to fit a particular setting. But I still intend to figure out, not the "most awesomest system" in the world, but the one that fits me best as a GM. I have added some mechanics to ensure that while I keep a single core engine, the rules can (and must) be tweaked to fit any setting. The Citizen H project will have rules to manage the Hero's reputation, morale, and ethical dilemmas. You could end up losing your special talents just because your hero has a bad reputation, has messed up his private life, and gets so depressed he quits his caped crusade.

As for your idea of making Wounds temporary Traits, I like that. In fact, I had thought of it myself, for another project that is now in "stand-by". I think I would be stupid not to use it in my current project.

I must confess though, that I quite don't get your point regarding my Traits being more "skills" than "Traits". What's the difference between and "add-on" and the substitution of a higher score to a default "average" value? In both cases, you end up having higher chances of succes if the relevant Trait is on your sheet.And if you read all my examples, you'll see that I intend Traits to reflect aspects of a character that have nothing to do with skills. Wealth would be a Trait. Status would be a Trait. A landed noble would have "Fief" as a Trait. Of course some Traits cannot default at d6 for every character.

But anyway, even if I don't end up agreeing with everything, it's still a great help in my design process. And I expect the playtesting phase to be even more decisive, of course.

Van wrote:
I must confess though, that I quite don't get your point regarding my Traits being more "skills" than "Traits". What's the difference between and "add-on" and the substitution of a higher score to a default "average" value? In both cases, you end up having higher chances of succes if the relevant Trait is on your sheet.And if you read all my examples, you'll see that I intend Traits to reflect aspects of a character that have nothing to do with skills. Wealth would be a Trait. Status would be a Trait. A landed noble would have "Fief" as a Trait. Of course some Traits cannot default at d6 for every character.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing the "default trait" would be to say that a character attempting an action for which she has no relevant trait rolls 1d6, unless the action requires specialized training (such as brain surgery, helicopter piloting, or casting magical spells).

As far as better titles, I'll throw out a few ideas, based on the Any____ model, but working on the idea of the game's applicability to multiple settings, rather than the dice it uses.
AnyWorld
AnyWhere
AnyWhen
AnyTime

And of course, one that's silly:
AnySMURF (Simple Multipurpose Universal Roleplaying Framework)

:)

I'll chime in and agree with the suggestion of tying the mechanics to the setting. Perhaps give a bonus for traits that fit closely with the setting and a penalty for those that do not. And think about context-specific bonuses: maybe a focused (or narrow) trait used in its specific context gets a bonus, and it gets a penalty if used out of its context - or it gets a really big bonus if used out of context in an especially appropriate or amusing way. Then there is an intriguing choice at character creation: do I take narrow traits with the chance to use them with bonuses and penalties depending on context, or do I take broad traits that can be used in many places at a flat rate?

But as you said this was a game mainly for your personal GMing style, I would argue that the most important thing is how it fits with that style. Playtesting is probably the only way to find that out.

As for titles, I'd go with tying it to the setting, also. Maybe "Fists vs. Tentacles?" Hm, that sounds a little silly. Maybe "The Cruelest Years"? Too dark?

Well, I'd like to thank all who have posted suggestions for my pet project. You didn't make me change my mind about my basic mechanics, but you did change the way I explain them in my first draft.
As for the Title, I think I like the Acronym "SMURF", but sadly, it translates to "SCHTROUMPF" in French (if we are both refering to the tales of little blue men by Belgian cartoonist Peyo)...