Topic: Refugee from D&D Land
Started by: Tequila Sunrise
Started on: 5/24/2009
Board: First Thoughts
On 5/24/2009 at 11:59am, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Refugee from D&D Land
Hi everyone, first post here! I’ve been playing D&D since I was about ten years old. I like it, but it’s not quite the game I want to GM, and likely never will be. I have a simulationist streak that D&D just doesn't satisfy; I don't want GURPS-level sim, but I do want hit point loss to mean something more than variations of "near hits" and "flesh wounds." Maybe a published game exists that is exactly what I want to GM, but I doubt it. I’ve been tinkering with my own game system for years now, but have yet to finish it. But I’m living in Korea now without my D&D paraphernalia, so I’ve been brainstorming more about my game. I have no intention of ever publishing a game, so this project is purely for my own satisfaction.
The Basics: My game, hereafter referred to as Awesome Adventures, or AA ('Cause who doesn't want to play a game with the same acronym as Alcoholics Anonymous? Okay, I haven't thought of a good name yet.), is similar to D&D in goal: go out into the wilderness, meet strange beings, kill stuff and then run home before their friends find you. You can use AA to run a political, mystery, horror or whatever type of campaign but I'm not as high-brow as all that. High level characters in AA are assumed to be great leaders, and will gain abilities that deal with mass combat and politics, but I haven't designed that far yet.
The Game World: Just to be all special and artistic-like, I'm using my own world and races. Let's call this world Eld. Eld is mostly an endless wilderness inhabited by faerie courts and roaming monsters. Scattered around this wilderness are pockets of civilization under the protection of god-made standing stones. Monsters and faeries can't directly attack civilizations because of the standing stones, but there are too many faeries and monsters for civilization to expand, so there is a more-or-less stable status quo. Perfect for a sandbox-type world of adventure. The races are themed after Greek gods:
Athenian (Athena): The race for high brow players.
Hadesian (Hades): The race for angsty players.
Poseidon: The race for magical & mysterious players.
Aresian (Ares): The race for tough guy players.
Artemian (Artemis): The race for hippy tree-hugger players.
Aphroditian (Aphrodite): The race for princess players.
Hephaestian (Hephaestus): The race for stoic players.
Races do not have stat mods, because they do very little to define a character but they create mental blocks for most players against interesting race/class combos. I have a couple ideas for racial abilities, but could use a lot of help here.
Task Resolution: 2d10. Hit points are mostly fixed in AA, so probabilities have to be a bit more normalized to avoid frequent spontaneous PC death. Thanks for reading, if you've gotten this far. More later.
On 5/24/2009 at 2:51pm, MacLeod wrote:
Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I like the idea that the human species is split up into multiple races.
I'll need more detail on the setting before I can say much... but for now, its a solid start.
What sort of attributes, traits, talents, skills, techniques, abilities, statistics, etc... do you intend on including?
Given your D&D background, are you going the classes route?
How does magic figure in, both for the world and for PCs?
Have you seen anything about the Power 19? Answer those questions, if only for yourself. =)
On 5/24/2009 at 10:17pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
MacLeod wrote:
I like the idea that the human species is split up into multiple races.
I'll need more detail on the setting before I can say much... but for now, its a solid start.
Honestly, that's all I have on the game world so far. There will be more in the future, but not much. I'm kinda lazy about world creation; I like to give my players a skeleton and a few ideas and let them fill in the blanks with their PCs.
MacLeod wrote: What sort of attributes, traits, talents, skills, techniques, abilities, statistics, etc... do you intend on including?
Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Wit and Charisma. PC atts start at +4, +5, +5 and +5, and you get 5 points to spend on buying them up.
+5: Cost 1
+6: Cost 1
+7: Cost 1
+8: Cost 2
Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex. Other than attributes and skills there will be maneuvers/spells. Maneuvers add rider effects to your basic attack option and are powered by Stamina Points; spells do all kinds of funky stuff and are powered by Mana Points.
MacLeod wrote: Given your D&D background, are you going the classes route?
Classes and levels are in. Classes are vague affairs that come in two flavors: martial and magical. Martial classes are: assassin, soldier, archer, berserker, duelist, fist-fighter. Magical classes so far: enchanter (uses Cha) and warmage (uses Wit).
MacLeod wrote: How does magic figure in, both for the world and for PCs?
Magic is definately there. The only noticable differences from D&D are that you don't have to pray to some old guy in the clouds to heal people, and magical items don't come in regularly scheduled bonus-standardized packages.
MacLeod wrote: Have you seen anything about the Power 19? Answer those questions, if only for yourself. =)
No, what's Power 19?
On 5/24/2009 at 10:46pm, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Tequila wrote:
Honestly, that's all I have on the game world so far. There will be more in the future, but not much. I'm kinda lazy about world creation; I like to give my players a skeleton and a few ideas and let them fill in the blanks with their PCs.
I know what you mean. That is basically what I do as well. Too much detail and you risk cornering a campaign or failing to live up to something.
Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Wit and Charisma. PC atts start at +4, +5, +5 and +5, and you get 5 points to spend on buying them up.
Any reason that a person couldn't have a crippling Attribute?
I assume that the toughness stat is being filed under Strength? Perhaps you could broaden that up a bit... though its not really that important.
Is Wit the Attribute you would use for perception based actions?
Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex.
I liked 4e's naming conventions for Skills but I do not like the way they are handled. Comes to preferences I s'pose. You say there is going to be a Combat skill... does this cover all forms of combat (unarmed, melee, ranged, improvised, etc...)?
Do you feel that the difference between Trained vs. Untrained will be significant enough to take into consideration?
Other than attributes and skills there will be maneuvers/spells. Maneuvers add rider effects to your basic attack option and are powered by Stamina Points; spells do all kinds of funky stuff and are powered by Mana Points.
Sounds good. Nothing quite like a fantasy game where the melee guys go, "I attack" every round. Are you going Tactical route a la 4e with Maneuvers/Spells, or are they going to have different factors?
Classes and levels are in. Classes are vague affairs that come in two flavors: martial and magical. Martial classes are: assassin, soldier, archer, berserker, duelist, fist-fighter. Magical classes so far: enchanter (uses Cha) and warmage (uses Wit).
What sets the classes apart? Is it culture, role or abilities? I like to think of the distinction between class-based games like Iron Heroes and D&D 3.5e. Iron Heroes' classes are defined by how they fight while D&D's classes are defined by how they fit in a culture (well, most of them).
Magic is definitely there. The only noticeable differences from D&D are that you don't have to pray to some old guy in the clouds to heal people, and magical items don't come in regularly scheduled bonus-standardized packages.
Indeed. So does this mean you plan on having a healer class of some sort? If not based on divine faith, then what?
I've come to notice that most people hate the way D&D makes magic loot mandatory. I've always felt that magic items should be special, rare and interesting with histories.
No, what's Power 19?
I won't fill up y'r thread with it... Here is a link instead.
http://spindrift.wikidot.com/power-19
On 5/25/2009 at 2:54am, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
MacLeod wrote:
Any reason that a person couldn't have a crippling Attribute?
Mostly I kept minimum attributes at +4 to avoid min/maxers from dropping two atts to +1 to get two +8s. But also because +5 is the human baseline, so going too much below that creates adventurers of somewhat silly ineptitude.
MacLeod wrote:
I assume that the toughness stat is being filed under Strength? Perhaps you could broaden that up a bit... though its not really that important.
Is Wit the Attribute you would use for perception based actions?
Yeah, Strength is D&D's Str + Con and Wit is D&D's Int + Wis. I'm leaving them intentionally vague so players have a little more freedom to describe their PCs how they wish.
MacLeod wrote:
Skills are simple and broad, much like 4e skills. 'Combat' is a skill too. If you're trained in a skill, your base bonus is equal to your level. If you're not trained, your bonus is equal to your level -2. Each skill is tied to one attribute: Combat is tied to Dex.
I liked 4e's naming conventions for Skills but I do not like the way they are handled. Comes to preferences I s'pose. You say there is going to be a Combat skill... does this cover all forms of combat (unarmed, melee, ranged, improvised, etc...)?
Do you feel that the difference between Trained vs. Untrained will be significant enough to take into consideration?
What don't you like about how 4e handles skills? Yes, Combat covers all styles. Specialization comes from maneuvers.
I've actually been somewhat torn about how much difference should exist between a trained and an untrained character. As it stands now, a trained PC has two more base bonuses than an untrained one, and likely two more attribute bonuses on top of that. That's a total of a 34% difference. Enough to make trained PCs feel competant while not screwing over untrained PCs...I think.
MacLeod wrote:
Sounds good. Nothing quite like a fantasy game where the melee guys go, "I attack" every round. Are you going Tactical route a la 4e with Maneuvers/Spells, or are they going to have different factors?
Not sure what you mean here, so I'll give a few examples. A duelist maneuver might allow the PC to move during the same action as his attack, while an assassin maneuver might allow the PC to outright kill his opponent if his attack roll succeeds by a large margin. With maneuvers, I'm going for "stuff that might happen in real fights, but hopefully more balanced than 3e." A basic enchanter's spell might apply a fear penalty to his foe, while a basic war mage spell might light a foe on fire.
MacLeod wrote:
What sets the classes apart? Is it culture, role or abilities? I like to think of the distinction between class-based games like Iron Heroes and D&D 3.5e. Iron Heroes' classes are defined by how they fight while D&D's classes are defined by how they fit in a culture (well, most of them).
Classes are all about how you fight. Martial classes are basically just ways to get maneuvers that fit with your favorite weapons. Ditto magical classes. You can fluff your PC's class/es however you want.
MacLeod wrote:
Indeed. So does this mean you plan on having a healer class of some sort? If not based on divine faith, then what?
I've come to notice that most people hate the way D&D makes magic loot mandatory. I've always felt that magic items should be special, rare and interesting with histories.
I think that healing magic will be a universal option, possibly even for martial characters. I might restrict it to an out-of-combat ritual though.
Ideally, I want magical items to be cool and interesting but not necessary. So no basic pluses to attack, damage, defense or DR.
On 5/25/2009 at 3:34am, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Tequila wrote: Mostly I kept minimum attributes at +4 to avoid min/maxers from dropping two atts to +1 to get two +8s. But also because +5 is the human baseline, so going too much below that creates adventurers of somewhat silly ineptitude.
Seems like a pretty high baseline, is there a reason that having +1/+2/+2/+2 wouldn't work? (I'm not trying to pull you down or anything, just trying to figure things out ^_^).
What don't you like about how 4e handles skills? Yes, Combat covers all styles. Specialization comes from maneuvers.
I hated that the difference was simply +5 or +0. Well, I guess in truth that isn't really a bad idea... I just think it may have made more sense if it was Trained=+1/Lv Untrained=+.5/Lv. I think that handling skill points is a hassle so this would be better than nothin'. I think if a flat modifier is going to be applied to skills, it should be based on Race and then some broad choices based on Class.
Not sure what you mean here
I'm referring to the miniature focused sort of tactical gameplay that 4e has. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't for everyone either. I also makes this reference to the way that 4e makes magic feel so mundane instead of like a different game mechanic. I'm often torn between balance and making magic actually cool in my own homebrew... Some days I want to make it a dark, dangerous art that if not used carefully can cause all sorts of mishaps.
Classes are all about how you fight. Martial classes are basically just ways to get maneuvers that fit with your favorite weapons. Ditto magical classes. You can fluff your PC's class/es however you want.
Is this purely a fluff related affair, or will you have game mechanics to support this? For instance, if I wanted to create an assassin who is a survivalist, outdoor guide and general ranger-ish sort of guy, could I do this fairly easily without too many compromises? One of my goals for my own game is to separate the non-combat bits and combat bits of the well-known archetypes for mixing purposes.
I think that healing magic will be a universal option, possibly even for martial characters. I might restrict it to an out-of-combat ritual though.
Ideally, I want magical items to be cool and interesting but not necessary. So no basic pluses to attack, damage, defense or DR.
I can agree with these ideas, they are all pretty solid. =)
On 5/25/2009 at 6:13am, David C wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I do want hit point loss to mean something more than variations of "near hits" and "flesh wounds."
Hitpoints are popular because it basically prevents "Spontaneous player death." Also, in the traditional treadmill rpg design, they're needed to keep up with escalating damage and lethality. There's two solutions that I can think of.
1) Remove the numbers from "damage." Have hits be "effects" instead, rolled on a table. Have things like "just a scratch", "your arm is broken", "your lung is punctured."
2) For Heroic Fantasy, have "perfect defenses." IE you defend 100% of the time. But incorporate a fatigue mechanic. Every time you defend, it's tiring. A creature like a dragon that's harder to dodge, costs more fatigue to defend against. (Then, for added realism, as you hit 75%, 50%, 25% fatigue, increase the chances of getting hit, all the way to "always getting hit.") It ultimately serves the same purpose of HP, but satisfies a Simulationist's thirst for realism. Btw, if you can answer, what's the appeal to realism anyways?
On 5/25/2009 at 6:20am, whiteknife wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
The setting looks cool.
Also, David C's idea about 'perfect defenses' is indeed a good alternative to hit points. I've used a couple system that have a system like this and they work great.
On 5/25/2009 at 6:30am, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
David wrote:
1) Remove the numbers from "damage." Have hits be "effects" instead, rolled on a table. Have things like "just a scratch", "your arm is broken", "your lung is punctured."
Problem with this solution is that it isn't conducive to fast play. If he is intending on building the sort of game with in-depth Maneuvers and what-not, there is already quite a bit of stuff to keep track of.
I do think that this idea has merit though. Think of how WFRP operates... 0 Hp doesn't mean death, instead each blow from then on is a Critical Hit that can destroy the victim's body. While you'll need charts, you won't need them for the entire experience.
One idea I have been toying around with lately in my own homebrews is the idea of having a buffer between physical damage called something akin to luck/fate/passion/determination/whatever. This buffer would restore automatically after a fight (maybe even between rounds) unless the character was shaken to his very core by some sort of trauma that left his passion for life wanting.
On 5/25/2009 at 10:12pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
MacLeod wrote:
Seems like a pretty high baseline, is there a reason that having +1/+2/+2/+2 wouldn't work? (I'm not trying to pull you down or anything, just trying to figure things out ^_^).
Mostly because +5 as the baseline satisfies my sense of simmed reality. If the human baseline is +1 or +2, that doesn't leave much room for creatures of exceptionally low scores like animals and such.
MacLeod wrote:
I hated that the difference was simply +5 or +0. Well, I guess in truth that isn't really a bad idea... I just think it may have made more sense if it was Trained=+1/Lv Untrained=+.5/Lv. I think that handling skill points is a hassle so this would be better than nothin'. I think if a flat modifier is going to be applied to skills, it should be based on Race and then some broad choices based on Class.
I originally intended to make the rule "untrained skills equal 1/2 your level, until you hit third level at which point they become your level -2" but it seems like a lot of language for just two levels.MacLeod wrote: I'm referring to the miniature focused sort of tactical gameplay that 4e has. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't for everyone either. I also makes this reference to the way that 4e makes magic feel so mundane instead of like a different game mechanic. I'm often torn between balance and making magic actually cool in my own homebrew... Some days I want to make it a dark, dangerous art that if not used carefully can cause all sorts of mishaps.
Hm, I'm not going out of my way to make the game tactics-focused but it will probably end up at least somewhat that way. You know, I've never played a game where magic felt really different from D&D's magic. So when people say magic is mundane, I don't have a frame of reference for anything else. Can you give an example of magical magic?MacLeod wrote: Is this purely a fluff related affair, or will you have game mechanics to support this? For instance, if I wanted to create an assassin who is a survivalist, outdoor guide and general ranger-ish sort of guy, could I do this fairly easily without too many compromises? One of my goals for my own game is to separate the non-combat bits and combat bits of the well-known archetypes for mixing purposes.
You can totally make a ranger PC. The only two skills restricted to certain classes are Combat and Magic, so you're free to be trained in any other skill regardless of class. You can also freely multiclass between any class, so you could have a few Archer maneuvers in addition to your sneaky shtick.
On 5/25/2009 at 10:21pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
David wrote:
2) For Heroic Fantasy, have "perfect defenses." IE you defend 100% of the time. But incorporate a fatigue mechanic. Every time you defend, it's tiring. A creature like a dragon that's harder to dodge, costs more fatigue to defend against. (Then, for added realism, as you hit 75%, 50%, 25% fatigue, increase the chances of getting hit, all the way to "always getting hit.") It ultimately serves the same purpose of HP, but satisfies a Simulationist's thirst for realism. Btw, if you can answer, what's the appeal to realism anyways?
My current goal is something like this, actually. PCs have hit points and stamina points. SP are used to power maneuvers, but after you use a bunch of them you start taking penalties. If you hit zero SP you lose conciousness. Lose a bunch of HP and you start bleeding to death.
On 5/25/2009 at 10:26pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Am I not seeing a button, or can we not edit posts? Anyway, the appeal of realism for me at least is to help suspension of disbelief. I hate to use a video game analogy, because I love Diablo and WoW, but when I play a true rpg I don't want to feel like I'm playing a video game.
On 5/25/2009 at 10:35pm, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Yeah... for some reason editing has been turned off for the time being. It is sort of annoying. @_@
Tequila wrote:
I originally intended to make the rule "untrained skills equal 1/2 your level, until you hit third level at which point they become your level -2" but it seems like a lot of language for just two levels.
As a throwaway opinion, I'd recommend just sticking with the 1/2 Level. Still makes the Skill usable but they'll miss the expertise of the full bonus. I think another thing that could help is Trained also unlocks special options for that character when using that Skill.
You know, I've never played a game where magic felt really different from D&D's magic. So when people say magic is mundane, I don't have a frame of reference for anything else. Can you give an example of magical magic?
I think pre-4e D&D magic is lot less mundane feeling simply because it runs on a different system than Feats do. In addition to that, I liked Metamagic feats... a nice way to personalize your magic use even though I didn't like the way it was handled mechanically.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has a pretty hardcore magic. I enjoyed the apprehension brought on by the chance of Tzeentch's Curse, especially wondering if you are going to accidentally summon a horde of demons. =D
You can totally make a ranger PC. The only two skills restricted to certain classes are Combat and Magic, so you're free to be trained in any other skill regardless of class. You can also freely multiclass between any class, so you could have a few Archer maneuvers in addition to your sneaky shtick.
I think this a pretty positive quality. =D
On 5/26/2009 at 10:54am, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
You've changed my mind. Untrained skills will be 1/2 level, until 8th level. At 9th level, when PCs become legendary, the untrained bonus becomes level -4. (Well, okay, you mostly changed my mind.) While we're talking about levels:
Apprentice: 1-2
Journeyman: 3-4
Master: 5-6
Grand Master: 7-8
Legendary: 9-10
11+ (haven't planned this far yet, maybe a continuation of legendary, or maybe something more)
On 5/26/2009 at 5:08pm, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
If you are looking for more naming conventions... insert Novice before Apprentice and Elite before Master.
What exactly separates the different Titles/Ranks? Access to abilities, a la 4e?
On 5/26/2009 at 10:44pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
MacLeod wrote:
What exactly separates the different Titles/Ranks? Access to abilities, a la 4e?
Legendary PCs get their own home bases, ala 2e D&D. Other than that and the tweak to untrained skill bonuses, the titles might not mean anything.
Now time for some nitty gritty about combat:
Actions ala 4e D&D: Standard, Move, Minor.
Attacks: 2d10 + Combat skill + Dex + your weapon's attack bonus.
Damage: Weapon's base damage die + Str.
Full Defense: 12 + Combat skill + Dex + your weapon's defense bonus.
Partial Defense: 12 + Combat skill + 1/2 Dex + your weapon's defense bonus.
Damage Reduction: Armor grants DR.
Spells work on the same mechanic, but target one of these defenses:
Fortitude: 12 + Level + Str
Reflex: 12 + Level + Dex
Will: 12 + Level + higher of Wit and Cha
Marks: I got this idea from a WotC poster before 4e came out, and it's brilliant. Each combatant can mark one opponent at a time. Against that opponent, you make attacks normally and you use Full Defense. Against other opponents, you only get 1/2 Dex to attacks and Defense. This makes low level hordes much scarier than they are in D&D, and it replaces Flanking. Marks will be one of the major experiments of my game, once I actually play it.
Hit Points
31-45: Healthy
16-30: Lose 1 HP each round from blood loss
1-15: Lose 2 HP each round from blood loss
0: Dead
Stamina Points
(4/5+1) - Max: Ah, life is good!
(3/5+1) - (4/5): A love a good work-out! Take -1 to all rolls and DCs.
(2/5+1) - (3/5): Man, these goblins are quick! Take -2 to all rolls and DCs.
(1/5+1) - (2/5): Damn, this sword is getting heavy! Take -3 to all rolls and DCs.
1 - (1/5): *Gasp* Take -4 to all rolls and DCs.
0: *Faints*
Weapons: Includes shields. Weapons come in broad categories like Two-Hand Melee and Bow, and have these stats: Dex Cap, Reach, Range, Attack Bonus and Defense Bonus.
Armor: Armor comes in three categories: Light, Heavy and Super Heavy. They have these stats: Dex Cap, Str penalty and Damage Reduction.
(Dex Cap: This works like Max Dex in 3e D&D, but is relative to Str. For example Light armor's Dex Cap is 2, so your Dex is effectively capped at two higher than your Str for all purposes as long as you wear it. So if you have +8 Dex and +5 Str, your Dex is effectively +7 while you wear light armor. Weapons apply the same concept, but only to attack rolls and Defense DCs.)
(Str Penalty: This is a flat penalty to Str-related checks.)
On 5/27/2009 at 3:36pm, Welkerfan wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Just to point out, Awesome Adventures is the title of a drift of Spirit of the Century, published by Willow Palacek.
On 5/28/2009 at 4:02pm, AJ_Flowers wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
It looks like the blood loss and stamina loss mechanics mean fights get really deadly after a few rounds. It also makes it harder for players to have a comeback from a difficult protracted fight. I know you're going for realism here, but I would probably use one or the other, not both. Is there any way to mitigate the blood loss from low HP? Like a useful item or getting bandaged or taking a quick recovery break? It seems honestly like something players would forget to 'tick off,' if you're going for speed of play, too.
On 5/28/2009 at 10:26pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I knew the AA name was taken by an rpg somewhere, I just didn't know which one. ;) I'm still working on a good name, have any suggestions? I'm thinking Burrows & Bunnies, but it sounds strangely familiar...
AJ_Flowers wrote:
It looks like the blood loss and stamina loss mechanics mean fights get really deadly after a few rounds. It also makes it harder for players to have a comeback from a difficult protracted fight. I know you're going for realism here, but I would probably use one or the other, not both. Is there any way to mitigate the blood loss from low HP? Like a useful item or getting bandaged or taking a quick recovery break? It seems honestly like something players would forget to 'tick off,' if you're going for speed of play, too.
They might end up being more a pain than they're worth, but I do want to try HP and SP loss. During combat, magic is the only way to prevent blood loss. Out of combat, first aid works too.
On 5/29/2009 at 2:19am, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I've got it!
The Setting Sun RPG
Earth is ancient beyond reckoning. Countless empires have risen and fallen since the birth of civilization, and the historians measure human history in billions of years--aeons. Humanity is an aged and nearly senile creature. Some spend their days in toil and torment, some in wild revelry, and some in the pursuit of nightmare monsters and waking dreams. The bloated red sun staggers across the sky every day, like a myopic graybeard shuffling to his bed. Some day soon, the sun will set for the last time, and who knows what will remain?
On 5/30/2009 at 3:04am, mjbauer wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Tequila wrote:
Setting Sun
I like it, but it could be a little too general.
On 5/30/2009 at 7:34am, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
That's a pretty sharp hook you've got there. =) I like it.
On 5/31/2009 at 3:09am, whiteknife wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I don't know. I like the name. And the hook text is pretty cool.
On 6/2/2009 at 10:45pm, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Glad you like it. Now, what I could really use some help with is ideas for combat maneuvers. Like I said I want them to be in the realm of real life possibility without getting too silly. (AKA that 4e rogue power that temporarily blinds the target by splashing blood in their eyes. Really, why don't I just aim for the eyes and blind them permanently? 'Silly' also refers to way-over-the-top anime style maneuvers that deserve a magical element.) I'm thinking about grouping combat maneuvers by related skills. For example, the assassin's death attack maneuver would be related to stealth. Tying maneuvers to skills creates theme, but successful rider effects will likely require a skill check too. Anyway I need ideas for:
Assassin: Stealth, Bluff
Pugilist: Acrobatics, Athletics
Berserker: Athletics, Intimidate
Soldier: Athletics, Insight
Archer: Perception
Duelist: Acrobatics, Insight
The related skills aren't set in stone.
mjbauer wrote:Tequila wrote:
Setting Sun
I like it, but it could be a little too general.
You mean just the setting name? How so?
On 6/4/2009 at 3:10am, mjbauer wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Tequila wrote:mjbauer wrote:Tequila wrote:
Setting Sun
I like it, but it could be a little too general.
You mean just the setting name? How so?
Is Setting Sun referring to something about what the system does or how it works (does it refer to "the end" of something)? Or is it supposed to refer to the setting? If so, I don't think it's distinct enough. It could as easily be a western setting as it could medieval, or modern. I'm trying to think of other game names and unless they are generic systems, the names seem like they are pretty specific to the setting or the system itself.
Just my opinion, if you have some better reasons then I'd like to hear them.
On 6/4/2009 at 4:20am, Tequila Sunrise wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
mjbauer wrote:
Is Setting Sun referring to something about what the system does or how it works (does it refer to "the end" of something)? Or is it supposed to refer to the setting? If so, I don't think it's distinct enough. It could as easily be a western setting as it could medieval, or modern. I'm trying to think of other game names and unless they are generic systems, the names seem like they are pretty specific to the setting or the system itself.
Ah, I see. 'The Setting Sun' refers only to my vaguely conceptualized world setting. So yeah, it's vague and unlikely to become any more specific anytime soon because:
1. I'm focusing on mechanics right now, and even when I actually start playing it'll likely be a very dungeon-crawly game, so setting tone and theme aren't of paramount importance. Besides, you could use my rules to run a western game. You'd just have to add stats for guns.
2. I'm a sucker for titles that imply a lot of possible concepts, but have no clear meaning.
3. Also, my little world blurb and game name are partly inspired by Vance's Dying Earth. (A really, really, really old world where anything is potentially possible even though civilization is mostly regressed to an ancient form.)
So what I'm trying to say is, I'm not married to The Setting Sun, and I might even think of or steal a different title. But it's not on my top 10 list of things to do, and I am fond of it.
On 6/21/2009 at 8:49pm, Dr. Velocity wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
I strongly suggest the OP checks out Warhammer Fantasy Role Play if at all possible, it strikes me as similar in many ways to what the OP is going for, so might have some useful ideas or examples that can be adapted. There are also a ton of other free RPG's people have made and put up online that each have their own approach which could help inspire you - John Kim's Free RPGs on the Web, 1KM1KT, The Free RPG Compendium, The Free RPG Blog.
On 6/24/2009 at 2:36pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: Refugee from D&D Land
Hey there, Tequila Sunrise. Do you have a real name we can use to refer to you? Bring things back to reality and all?
You say that D&D isn't quite your thing. Doesn't satisfy your simulationist streak. Do you mind talking about that a bit more? Maybe give us an example of some real, actual play that you were involved in that didn't satisfy you, and explain what was "broken" for you?
Because that is the real root of your game design bug, right? Dissatisfaction with what's out there? You played some games -- especially D&D -- and it didn't do what you wanted it to do, so now you're making your own thing.
You say you have no intention to publish this. That's fine! But do you intend to play it? Run it for friends and stuff?