Concept
* Based on late 15th century - early 16th century Europe.
* As continental population exploded and social and cultural values were radically transformed, demonic influences became more accessible.  In an effort to improve military might without depleting resources on training, states chartered schools of magic which were affordable to commoners and churned out large numbers of brash and ambitious neophyte wizards.  Many of them were lured towards the quick and easy path of profane power.  However, the repercussions to nature and society would be deep and volatile. 
* Amongst others, players may take the role of displaced or landless nobles, holy warriors or black knights in the service of demon lords, experienced wizards or partially-possessed warlocks, or oriental mercenaries and emissaries looking to take advantage of lucrative opportunities and political instability.
* As a result of great turmoil combined with the new magic-economy, the adventurer class emerged.

Sounds cool.  What makes this system or world unique?  It seems like a DnD module could do this.  Are you thinking of this as a module or a whole game?  Would you lean toward steampunk or a keep it more technologically and historically accurate?

It sounds like it could be more of a narrative political game than a hack and slash system.

Locke wrote:
Sounds cool.  What makes this system or world unique?  It seems like a DnD module could do this.  Are you thinking of this as a module or a whole game?  Would you lean toward steampunk or a keep it more technologically and historically accurate?

It sounds like it could be more of a narrative political game than a hack and slash system.

Sounds intriguing though I'm not one for 'highly lethal' combat systems. At least, not highly lethal to the players.

I'm interested to know how you plan on mapping out the demonology aspect. How much depth will it have? What influences will you draw on? Will you make use of specific sources?

MacLeod wrote:
I'm interested to know how you plan on mapping out the demonology aspect. How much depth will it have? What influences will you draw on? Will you make use of specific sources?

Combat Concept (without concrete distance increments)
It seems like a scout has exposed the Sir Elric's group on their way to the warlock's keep.  As they ride their horses over the hill, a group of twelve demons on horseback led by a Black Knight charge in a line down an adjacent hill towards them.  Elric, seeing as he's grossly outnumbered, uses his "leadership" skill to command his group into a favorable position, with his brother, Lord Vesperillo, in the center as he and his warriors fall in on both sides of the wizard.

Round 2 - Sir Elric and his warriors wait at the top of the hill as the demons continue charging.  Lord Vesperillo begins his incantation, which he is concentrating intently on.  It looks like it will be a powerful spell, but he doesn't bother to hasten it as the spell is naturally timed to hit the group as they start coming up the hill.  The player rolls a 3 (within the success range) on the standard dice rank (1d10), which means that the spell will be prepared on time.

Round 3 - Sir Elric's group wait.  The Black Knight's group starts travelling up the party's hill.

Round 4 - Vesperillo’s robes flap about as a strong wind surrounds him.  He holds his palms out in front of him wide.

Round 5 - As Vesperillo yells the command word, Sir Elric yells "Charge on the outside!".  The warriors on both sides ride down to the tail ends of the demons’ line as a huge blast of wind smashes into the Black Knight and 3 demons on each side of him.  Vesperillo’s player rolls attack dice (d6 for the spell’s improved power = 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1; armor check for Black Knight 1d4= 3).  The GM lets the player describe what happened.
Vesperillo: “Everyone falls off their horse and tumbles down the hill except for one demon on the right side.  Horses fall on top of 3 of them, including the Black Knight,  as 2 demon underlings are instantly crushed to death.”

Round 6 - The outsides of the line meet with Sir Elric and his warriors (attack vs. fight back all of them).  Since Elric’s group have the high ground, they get a dice bonus.  (Elric 4 vs. demon 1 = 1d4 vs. 2d10 = 2 vs. 13)
Elric: “I cut into the demon’s shoulder as he falls off his horse.”
(Warrior Cheng vs. Demon = 4 vs. 2 = 1d6 vs. 2d8 = 1 vs. 11)
Cheng: “I lop the demon’s head off with my broadsword.”
(Squire Almaric vs. Demon = 3 vs. 2 = 1d8 vs. 1d12 = 8 vs. 2; half plate armor check = 1d8 = 7, fail)
GM: “The demon’s war sword strikes your helmet as the momentum causes you to fall backwards off your horse.  You are “injured” as a few ribs are broken from the fall.”
(Warrior Jin vs. Demon = 4 vs. 2 = 1d6 vs. 2d8 = 5 vs. 10)
GM: “As you close in with your spear, the demon’s sword deflects it and you two pass by each other.”
Two remaining demons who weren’t hit from the blast or in the melee charge towards Vesperillo.  Vesperillo begins casting a spell to shield himself (1d6 = 1).  The incantation and gesture is easy for him as he quickly surrounds himself in an invisible skin of magical energy.

In the end, the horde of demons and the Black Knight are slain, but unfortunately, Squire Almaric is killed in battle.

Melee Combat
There will be many modes of close-quarters combat.  Each mode has its own methods of use, so you would have to develop them individually.  There will even be secondary modes for significantly different methods of using the same primary mode.  For example, the long sword will have its standard fighting mode and an armored fighting mode (significant use of grappling and half-swording).  Sword and buckler may be another secondary mode.

Primary Modes - Weapon benefits listed below are based upon the research I’ve been doing on historical usage, with the ARMA website as a significant source.  (There are more modes, but I haven’t gotten around to researching them yet.)

Grappling - Excellent for bypassing defensive measures.
Pugilism - Terrible armor penetration, range and lethality, but excellent speed.
Long Sword - Decent armor penetration and lethality; good range and good speed
Great Sword - Good range, excellent lethality (improves range of success), and decent speed
Hand-and-a-Half Sword - Good range, lethality, and speed.
Small Sword - Poor range, but decent armor penetration and speed
Rapier - Terrible armor penetration, but good lethality and excellent speed.
Dagger - Terrible range, but good armor penetration and excellent speed in very close quarters.
Spear - Excellent range and good armor penetration.  Especially useful when mounted (attack vs. fight back very lethal when two combatants are mounted; superior range allows an unopposed attack)
War Hammer - Excellent armor penetration and good speed, but low range.
((Note: I’m going to have to re-evaluate weapons to make sure they’re well-balanced; weapons will typically have a zero-difference in numerical comparison to each other.  Therefore, the player will need to decide carefully the appropriate weapon for the situation.)

Lethality - Lists the level of success for the given number rolled when attacking.
1. Terrible Lethality
1 = Moderate Success
2 = Minor Success
3 = Minor Success
2. Poor Lethality
1 = Moderate Success
2 = Moderate Success
3 = Minor Success
3. Standard Lethality
1 = Critical Success
2 = Moderate Success
3 = Minor Success
4. Decent Lethality
1 = Critical Success
2 = Moderate Success
3 = Minor Success
4 = Minor Success
5. Good Lethality
1 = Critical Success
2 = Moderate Success
3 = Moderate Success
4 = Minor Success
6. Excellent Lethality
1 = Critical Success
2 = Critical Success
3 = Moderate Success
4 = Minor Success

Speed
In an attack vs. fight back scenario, speed determines who rolls first.  This is important because the faster combatant rolls first, which means that if he rolls within the moderate or critical success range, he will prevent the opposing roll of his opponent.

Range
Superior range disallows the other combatant from using the attack or fight back option until he has closed the distance, which (usually) requires a successful opposing roll.  Also, unless if the other combatant uses a skill point (“close-in” special maneuver) or succeeds his roll for closing the distance by at least a moderate amount, he will be unable to make a follow-up attack immediately after closing the distance.

Armor Penetration
The lethality of your weapon won’t matter if your opponent’s armor is going to stop it anyway.  The armor penetration value of your weapon increases the dice rank of your opponent’s armor check by 1 rank per point.

((More to come on melee combat rules…))

I reckon dark age is better than renaissance for the type of setting you describe.  Dark ages are just so much more interesting and potential filled, to me anyway.  Themes common to dark ages that offer great hooks for roleplaying:

1)  recent disaster(s) (whether natural, political or supernatural or a combination) that have resulted in the breakdown of the old civilization
2)  displaced and dispossessed peoples
3)  a search for new meaning since the 'old ways' have failed
4)  radical tilting of the previous balance of power and no new equilibrium yet established -> power struggle to achieve new world order
5)  a breakdown of law and order resulting in the growth of petty tyrants, warlords, pirates, brigands and freebooters
6)  an upswing in provincial and isolationist thinking since trade and learning have dwindled.

Its no coincidence that some of the most heroic and enduring myths have sprung from  dark ages such as the tales of Homer from the late bronze dark age and Aurthurian legends after the fall of Rome.

A mini-dark age cose to your intended period is the 1300s.  check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Late_Middle_Ages

I wanted something that I felt was more complex to work with; the late War of the Roses period to the reign of Queen Elizabeth I presents a setting concept rich in political and religious intrigue as well the potential for bloody violence.  Not only that, but I really would like to model the sophisticated martial styles of that time period in my combat system.  In addition, the church is quite the monolith at this point, and I felt that demonic subjects would be particularly relevant given the artistic expressions of contemporaries such as Hieronymus Bosch.

I also plan on integrating Chinese influence into the European motif.  The Ming dynasty saw a huge surge of interaction between the Europeans, and by placing stong emphasis on this idea, I can create an elaborate dynamo between European politics, the Church (witches really will be burned), supernatural abominations, and oriental imperialists (as well as their own brand of strange magics).

More on Combat Mechanics

Shields and Bucklers
On offense, shields and bucklers give a combatant bonuses to open his opponent's guard as well as to close in on his opponent.  When actively defending, a shield or a buckler will improve your success rate.  When fighting back, you will have an improved armor check dice rank.  A buckler has smaller values, but will allow a combatant to use a weapon in a two-handed manner to improve lethality.

Armor
When an opponent scores an attack within the success range, you must make an armor check (standard dice rank).  Rolling within the armor's success range will reduce or nullify injury to your character.  Armor coverage will affect the range of success, whereas the strength of the armor will affect the degree of protection (from minor - moderate - critical) within the range of success.  The armor penetration value of a weapon will penalize the dice rank a combatant must roll when making an armor check.  Finally, the quality of the armor will affect the critical failure range of the armor check.  Should a combatant roll within the critical failure range, his armor will degrade in quality and the strength value of his armor may degrade as well.

Combat Sequencing Mechanics (Pending)

Rationale
To devise a method that allows combatants to be easily mobilized and organized so that the system doesn't break down on larger scales.  Although complex, the sequencing method will make individual initiative rolls or static sequence values obsolete.  Thus, less rolling as well as bookkeeping will be required in combat resolution, which results in a net streamlining effect.

Concept
A combat round will be divided into distinct phases from first to last in the round: the command phase, the movement phase, the attack phase, the follow-up phase, and the spell/item phase.

Command Phase - This phase is reserved for characters using their leadership skills to organize the actions of their party (a leader must already be decided upon by the party before combat).  Those commands will be executed by the party in their respective phases.  Rotation is by individual.

Movement Phase - This phase is reserved for combatants who are moving as their first action for the round (command phase notwithstanding).  The rotation is by party, in which the party that initiated combat moves first, and then in order as determined by the GM.

Attack Phase - This phase is reserved for combatants who are attacking/fighting back or defending as their first action for the round.  The rotation is by group of combatants directly engaged in combat with one another.

Follow-Up Phase - This phase is reserved for combatants making follow-up attacks to a movement action and for combatants responding to follow-ups.  The rotation is the same as the attack phase.

Spell/Item Phase - This phase is reserved for combatants who are using items or casting spells.  Rotation is by individual.

How to Execute
When it has been declared that combat has begun, the GM asks the players what general action they will execute: command, movement/move-and-attack, attack/defend, or spell/item use.  The GM is then able to determine which phases of combat need to be acted out as well as the order of rotation within each phase.

*Once combat has been initiated, players will have no opportunities to collaborate with each other and determine a strategy.  The leadership skill, being the exception, will allow players to organize themselves in the chaos of combat.  If a group leader issues a command, the group members (including the leader) may change their actions in accordance with the command. 

*Otherwise, if combatants want to change their actions, they may suffer penalties (as a result of hesitation or not being prepared).

*The GM may use any manner of determining order of rotation within each combat phase.

Tactical Provisions for Melee Combat

I. Engage (Attack) - To exchange blows or techniques in all manners, combining offensive and defensive movements.
Skilled Maneuvers for Melee Combat
1. Follow-up attack
2. Disarm
3. Open guard
4. Covered attack
II. Defend - In preparation to ward off or evade blows and techniques.
Skilled Maneuvers for Melee Combat
5 Counterattack
6. Traverse
7. Close-in

Skilled Maneuvers for Melee Combat

1. Follow-Up Attack - Upon scoring at least a moderate success on your standard attack, you may immediately make a free attack.  You may not make consecutive follow-ups or follow-up after a counterattack.  Add the speed bonus of your primary mode to the attack.

2. Disarm - Instead of a standard attack, attempt to disarm the opponent at a +1 DR penalty.  Upon scoring at least a moderate success, you may immediately make a free attack.  This technique ignores all bonuses granted from the defend option, including any shield/buckler bonuses.  Add the maneuverability bonus of your primary mode to the attack.

3. Open Guard - Instead of a standard attack, attempt to break the defense of your opponent (feints or controlling your opponent‘s arms/legs/weapon, etc.).  Upon success, you may immediately make a free attack.  Add the maneuverability bonus of your primary mode to the attack.

4. Covered Attack - Make a standard attack at a +1 DR penalty.  If your opponent succeeds the opposing attack against you (or an attack made after a successful defense), that attack must be re-rolled ( if successful, the re-rolled attack may not surpass the original degree of success).  Add the speed bonus of your primary mode to the attack.

5. Counterattack - If the attacker rolls a 7 when you are defending, you may immediately make a free attack.  Add the speed bonus of your primary mode to the attack.

6. Traverse - If the attack rolls a 7 when you are defending, you may immediately attempt to flank your opponent at a -1 DR bonus.  Upon scoring at least a moderate success,  you may immediately make a free attack.

7. Close-In - If the attacker rolls a 7 when you are defending, you may attempt to break the distance gap between you and your opponent.  Upon scoring at least a moderate success, you may immediately make a free attack.

Working on adding horse mechanics to the game.  Here's what I got so far:
*Courser, Destrier, and Palfrey horse types. (Reading contradicting statements on the Destrier vs. Courser; I need to know which one was more powerful on the battlefield)
*Horses give the trained rider +2 skill vs. ground combatants; charging increases to-hit and power of attack, but exposes the rider to attack and extra lethality (from momentum) as well.
*Halberds and pikes are the best weapons against mounted opponents, with the former better against mounted opponents in plate armor.  (It's going to be a pain in the ass for your characters to choose the right weapon combinations for battle; I will impose a limit on how many weapons can be carried by a character at any given time.)
*Wizards can't cast very well while mounted, and oriental sorcerers usually can't use magic at all because very specific body postures are required for their expressions.  Thus, in such battles, it's best to keep the caster at the rear in a fixed position or have them simply engage the enemy in melee combat like everyone else.  (Notice how casters don't undermine melee combatants in combat potential.)

New Play Concept

While at his estate, Lord Thomas Somerset is about to be arrested for conspiring to overthrow the newly crowned, barely legitimate king.  The Duke of Westhaven walks inside along with armed guards and explains to him that he will be taken to "The Spire" and that his coffers and lands will be seized by the crown as well.  Lord Thomas knows what's in store for him - a swift trial followed by an even swifter execution - so he decides to take his chances and fight his way out.

Player - Do I have any weapons on me?
GM - Just your dagger.  Your rapier was left on the table, which just so happens to be behind the guards.
Player - Damn.  I’m not very skilled with a dagger.  What weapons are the guards carrying?
GM - The guards are holding halberds.  They are also wearing breastplates.
Player - Alright.  I’m going to draw my dagger and go for a sudden, surprise attack to the exposed neck.
GM - There’s a good deal of unprotected area, so you’ll only suffer +1 DR to your attack roll after skill comparison.  (GM determines that the guard doesn’t have a significant amount of combat experience, so he rolls a higher dice rank against surprise, which is 1d12.  The GM rolls a 6, which means the guard cannot make an opposing roll this round and the default attack dice against him is DR 0, modified to DR 1 from the aimed attack to the unprotected body area.)  Ok, roll DR 1 for your surprise round attack.
Player - (Scores a 1 on his roll, which is a critical hit).  I swiftly draw my dagger and thrust it into his neck before he can even react.  Blood squirts and gushes from the severed carotid artery as I pull the blade out.
GM - (The guard must make a morale check, using 1d8.  He scores a 3, a minor success, which means he hesitates; he can make no opposing rolls for the round and attacks made against him get a -1 DR bonus.  The GM rolls for Duke Westhaven, 1d4, and scores a 1, so he suffers no effect.)  After seeing you kill the guard, the other guard watches the other in shock as he gurgles and grasps his neck.  The guard hesitates to attack you.  The first round has started, and it’s your turn.
Player - I can automatically close the distance against the guard, right?
GM - That’s right.
Player - Ok, I close in on him, and strike at the other guard’s neck.
GM - (The GM determines the skill comparison: 2 for Thomas’ skill with the dagger and 1+1 for the guard’s skill with grappling to shove off Thomas with the shaft of his halberd.  The modifiers for the aimed attack penalty, the close range bonus for the dagger, and the hesitation attack bonus total -1 DR, so Thomas must roll 1d8 for the attack.)  Roll 1d8.
Player - (The player rolls a 2, which is a moderate success.)  The blade misses the target but digs in near the collarbone as the guard screams out in agony.  I make a follow-up attack with my grappling skill and attempt to shove him into Duke Westhaven.
GM - What’s your grappling skill?
Player - I have a 3.
GM - (The GM determines that the attack gets a total bonus of -3 DR from the guard being in an injured state for -2 and from the speed bonus of the grappling attack granted by the “follow-up” skilled maneuver.  The GM also rolls against Duke Westhaven’s acrobatics skill in case the guard is pushed into him.  Since the position of the table and chairs don’t give him much room to maneuver, the GM decides to be generous for the sake of narrative and determines that the roll against him receives a -2 DR bonus, which comes out to a d4.  The GM rolls a 2.)
Ok, roll DR 1.
Player - (The player rolls a 1 on the d4 roll; a critical success.)  I shove the guard as he trips over the other fallen guard…
GM - and tumbles into Duke Westhaven.  They both crash into the table and chairs, falling to the ground!
Player - Nice! 
GM - Alright.  So, you can either continue fighting or make a run for it.  Your call.
Player - I got really lucky with those rolls.  I don’t want to push it further.  I’m going to grab my sword and get out of here.

Implications
*In spirit with my research on renaissance fighting methods, grappling is a practical combat option and is simple to understand and execute.  Grappling exchanges will commonly be mixed in with weapon exchanges, especially during armored combat.

*Aimed attacks are handled with simplicity and allow you the opportunity to bypass armor as you see fit.  If armor leaves large areas exposed, like a breastplate, then your aimed attacks suffer a +1 DR penalty; +2 for areas exposed by armor such as three-quarter plate; +3 for the miniscule areas left exposed by full Gothic or Maximilian-style suits of armor.

*Both combatants' skill and situational modifiers are scaled seamlessly using the graduated dice method.  In the example above, the player took advantage of situation and position to account for the disparity in skill.  In other games, he would not have been allowed such command over the circumstances.  I attribute this both to the inherent lethality of the system (many combat encounters are resolved in a coup de main; hit points blunt the importance of situation, as situation is not likely to help you take your opponents out of the fight in a single movement, and a higher-skilled opponent will be able to catch up to your advantage) and the numerically-reliable manner in which the dice scales. 
Thus, position and circumstance dictate the flow of action in combat rather than the personal power of each combatant.  These elements determine what weapons, manner of attack, and manner of maneuvering are best suited to the situation; there is no single tactic you can use over and over again to win every fight.
As a result, your character is likely to die in combat.  This is intentional.  However, character creation is also intended to be a very quick process, so you can get back in the action.

Armor
When you get struck in combat, an armor check is made using the appropriate dice rank.  There are two main attributes of armor - strength and coverage - which directly affect the success of your armor check and are based upon the overall protection of your entire body.  The coverage attribute affects how likely it is that you will be protected at all.  Thus, the better your armor's coverage, the lower the dice rank you roll.  The strength attribute affects the quality of protection you receive within the success range.  There are three possible degrees of protection from any given integer within the success range: critical (3 points), moderate (2 points), and minor (1 point).  If the degree of success from the opponent's attack is greater than the degree of protection offered by your armor check, then you subtract the point value of your armor check (listed above) from your opponent's attack to determine the actual effect of the attack.

For example, let’s say your opponent’s attack is a critical success.  You roll your armor check, which comes out to a 3 (the attributes of your armor determine that this is a moderate success).  Subtracting the value of your armor’s success (2) from your opponent’s attack (3) means that the actual effect of the attack is 1, which results in a minor success for the attacker.

To account for all possible combinations of armor (and thus, adhering to design criteria demanding mechanical fluidity), the system uses a formula for determining the exact range of coverage and strength.

Determining Coverage
Your overall coverage value will start at a base of 0, which represents dice rank 0 and the maximum amount of coverage possible.  Coverage does not consider individual armor types (plate/mail/leather, etc.); if the body is covered by some type of valid armor type, then it counts for consideration.
1.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of torso area unprotected (2 increments of coverage). 
2.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of total leg area (with both legs in consideration) unprotected (2 increments of coverage). 
3.  Add 1 dice rank if less than 2/3 of the total arm area (with both arms in consideration) are unprotected (1 increment of coverage).
4.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of head coverage unprotected (+1 for open-faced helms or if the visor of a full coverage helmet is raised) (2 increments of coverage).

Formulas will be pre-calculated for common armor combinations to minimize effort. 
Examples:
Tournament Armor / Gothic Armor / Maximilian Armor - DR 0
Three-quarters Plate - DR 1 (1d4)
Reduced Plate (helm and cuirass) - DR 4 (1d10)

Determining Strength
Each armor type (padded, leather, studded, jack of plate, mail, plate, tournament / heavy plate) has a base value of protection per increment of coverage.  Add up the values of each increment to determine your overall armor strength.

Overall Armor Strength - Lists the degrees of protection, or success, for the given number rolled for your armor check.

Very Poor
1 = Minor
2 = Minor
3 = Minor

Poor 
1 = Moderate
2 = Minor
3 = Minor

Moderate
1 = Moderate
2 = Moderate
3 = Minor

Good
1 = Critical
2 = Moderate
3 = Minor

Very Good
1 = Critical
2 = Moderate
3 = Moderate

Excellent
1 = Critical
2 = Critical
3 = Moderate

Maximum
1 = Critical
2 = Critical
3 = Critical

Formulas will be pre-calculated for common armor combinations to minimize effort. 
Examples:
Gothic / Maximilian Armor - Excellent
Tournament Armor - Maximum (Note: combined with 0 DR from the armor’s overall coverage value means that every hit that isn’t precisely aimed at a vulnerable area or doesn’t have an armor penetration value will not harm the combatant.)

In my next post, I’ll discuss other aspects of armor.

...the helmet in particular.  To draw similarities from my own experiences, even boxing headgear can be quite cumbersome if you have not spent many good training hours getting accustomed to it.  The models with heavier padding tend to restrict your vision, and models that don't fit properly move too much and distract you.  Thus, I've actually taken a preference for the lightest headgear, and despite the reduced degree of protection, I'm actually protected better because I am able to focus on what's going on.  I can only imagine knights felt the same way about their helmets, often choosing to sacrifice protection for less cumbrance. 

From what I've read of helmets of the day, and from what I couldn't logically assume otherwise, they severely restricted vision and were extremely stifling.  By bridging my own experiences with my research, I would have to extrapolate that helmets, especially ones with closed visors, presented many tangible hindrances to accompany its protective benefits.  I intend to model these factors within the system.  (Note: because of the high granularity, and because game masters are likely to overlook them, these rules will probably be listed as optional, or I may simplify them in another way).

1.  Severe loss of vision - This means that the combatant has a lower range of awareness.  Also, opponents that are able to flank the combatant will get a -2 DR bonus instead of just -1.

2.  Difficulty breathing - This means that the combatant is likely to tire quickly (does not affect open-faced helmets or helmets with the visor raised).  If the combatant suffers any form of attack (even a minor success) or a critical miss, he must check his athletics passive skill or become fatigued as a result of the great effort required to recover.

3.  Lack of experience using the equipment - This means that you get distracted while wearing the helmet, and you suffer -1 to any skill while wearing it.  Helmets that don’t fit well or are badly damaged will also cause this effect, which does not stack with the experience factor; -1 is the maximum penalty.

Next post: alternative (simplified) armor rules for possible revision of the previous post.

Alternative Armor Rules
Whenever I say "simplified" in reference to mechanics, I never mean "dumbed down to make it easier to calculate".  I mean that the mechanics are more elegant from an aesthetic and practical point of view.  So yes, it is easier to comprehend, but the rule itself has not been rendered abstract.

Furthermore, the alternative rules are completely consistent with the core logic of the system.  In comparison, the original post implemented special rules, which was why it was revised so quickly.

The new method is to add up points allocated by coverage and strength to determine your overall protective value.  From there, the dice rank of your armor check will be determined.  There are 12 total areas of coverage: 2 for the torso (point values are tripled for each area), 2 for the head/face (point values are doubled for each area), and 2 for each limb (upper and lower limb).  Armor type gives a point value for each coverage area: 1 for padded, 2 for leather, 3 for studded, 4 for brigandine/jack of plate, 5 for mail, 6 for plate armor, 7 for tournament armor / other (magical, etc.)

DR 0 (1d4-1): 100 (full plate armor)
DR 1 (1d4): 84 (reduced plate)
DR 2 (1d6): 60 (cuirass and helmet)
DR 3 (1d8): 36 (cuirass, or jack of plate and helmet)
DR 4 (1d10): 18
DR 5 (1d12): 12
DR 6 (2d8): 10

Areas unaccounted for: hands, feet, neck, groin, underarms.  Coverage of these areas does not improve overall protection value, but does protect the wearer from aimed attacks.

I've been reworking the skilled techniques list for melee combat in order to make players' choices in combat more meaningful.  Here are the changes I've made:

1. Removed "disarm" technique. 
Changes:  Instead, you'll be able to use your grappling skill to grab a weapon as a standard attack.  When you use your "open guard" technique, you will disarm an opponent's weapon upon scoring a critical success. 
Rationale: When I compared the usefulness of the disarm technique to a standard attack, I could not think of situations which would make one method more appropriate than the other; it was really six of one and half a dozen of the other.

2. Restructured the "defend" combat option.
Changes: The only basic combat option is to "engage".  You may choose to defend only: to buy time, guard another, increase the chances of your opponent making a critical failure, or to give ground in order to seek a better position and improve your chance to successfully defend. 
Rationale: To remove redundancy.  Technically, you are also defending while you are making offensive maneuvers, which justifies the manner in which opposing combatants’ relative skill scales their dice rank; if you’re more skilled than the opponent, his dice rank against you is penalized.

3. Restructured the “counterattack” technique.
Changes:  It is no longer part of the “defend” basic combat option.  When you attempt the technique, your opponent receives +1 DR penalty against you, and if his attack fails (by a reasonable amount), you may make any standard attack against him, adding the speed bonus of your weapon.  Unfortunately, rapiers of this period aren’t designed for fighting in double time.  However, you may optimize this technique in other ways.  For example, since unarmed fighting has a high speed rating, you could pull something off like, “I intercept his blade with my own, locking it, and kick him in the groin…On my follow-up attack, while he recoils from the pain, I grip the bastard sword with both hands and drop the center of my blade into his neck, causing a mist of blood to spray out upon impact.  As I forcefully draw the sword out to maximize the gash, the poor fool gurgles and drops to the ground like a stone”.  In any case, counterattack is greater than the standard attack as an opening maneuver, especially if you are lesser in skill than your opponent (although standard attack maximizes combat time, which is great for groups of significantly lesser opponents and prevents them from flanking you). 
Rationale: To conform to the new combat structure.  These new changes allow a combatant to take full advantage of quicker modes of attack whenever appropriate.  They also allow for greater utility of hand-to-hand combat, as it is reported that unarmed techniques were commonly employed in conjunction with Renaissance weapon techniques.

4. Restructured the “open guard” technique.
Changes:  A critical success results in your opponent being disarmed (fall to the ground 1 distance increment back instead if using a shield to open guard).  If successful, you may choose your follow-up attack to be modified by maneuverability instead of speed, and your opponent’s shield won’t factor into his armor check. 
Rationale:  To install an option that effectively counters a strong defense.

In the following post, I’ll go over changes made to the “traverse”, “close-in”, and “covered attack” techniques.

Hi Christopher,

I like your concept! You've obviously spent a lot of thought and research on it so far.

Who do you see as your target audience for this game and what form will the end product take? Ie how many words do you think it will be, will it be free or for sale, how will you offer it (html, pdf, hardcopy, etc)?

The reason I ask is that the answers are likely to impose some practical constraints on your finished ruleset.

Cheers, charles

I suppose that my target audience would be old-school role-players who've enjoyed Dungeons and Dragons in the past, and would like to play a traditional RPG with a modern sophistication to it.  I don't really think in terms of product, however, as I have no delusions about making a lucrative career out of game design.  I just do it for fun, and I'll cross the publishing bridge when I get to it.

Hi Christopher,

By end product I mean whatever is going to end up in the hands of the people you want to play your game. Your end product might or might not be tied to aspirations of a lucrative career. In terms of what I'm trying to say here though, that question's not really relevant.

I guess what I'm talking about is closing the artistic loop between the creation in your head and something concrete in front of someone else. So when I say end product, I really mean the medium by which your vision is translated into an experience shared by others. It could be a free pdf published on Google docs, or a hardbound series appearing in game stores, or anything in between. It's not important what it is, but I think it's important for you as a designer to have at least some idea what you want it to be at a point pretty early in the design process.

The reason I think it's important is that whatever form that finished medium takes is going to have attendant constraints. Those constraints will limit your design, and (IMO) should therefore inform your design.

The most basic example of what I'm talking about is length. Your finished game will have a length. Whatever this is, it should affect your design decisions. If you want your game to be quick to learn and to run with little time spent on rules lookups, a 200,00 word ruleset will not serve this goal well. If you want your game to be about realistic combat full of tactical choices and weapon tables, plus have a detail-rich setting of three major continents, plus have an intricate system of political factions, plus comprehensive social interaction mechanics, you aren't going to fit it all into a 10 page printout.

In concrete terms:

You've proposed your game will be about:
* A sprawling demonology with complex personalities, hierarchies, and motives, and the manner in which humans interact with them. 
* The impact of abusive magic on the landscape.
* The pursuit of prestige and influence.
* Highly lethal combat that takes the form of robust tactical skirmishes predominantly against opponents who are thinking, reasoning combatants.  I intend for the system to be able to handle large numbers of opponents without breaking down.

(BTW, thses all look cool & interesting to me)

So far, you've talked about the combat system. My feel is that its going to be reasonably rules-heavy and take time to develop in your text. If I assume that all of your 4 points will be of roughly the same complexity and weight, that's going to be a pretty long ruleset.

Note that "rules-heavy", "complexity", and "long ruleset" are relative. My meaning here is that if you put D&D 4E at one end, and Microlite74 (6 pgs) at the other, I'd see you game closer to 4e that to Microlite74.

Is this how you see your game?

Again, your answer doesn't affect my opinion of your game (or you) one way or the other. I just want to get a feel for what your goals are.

One last thing: if your game is solely an intellectual excercise at this stage, obviously you're not constrained at all by considerations of length or end-users. If so, please ignore all of the above.

Cheers, Charles

I see your point.  The following are a few considerations I've made:

* The RPG will be full-sized.  Not huge and intimidating, but full.  I like realism, but I don't like rules-bloat, so a great deal of my efforts go towards figuring out how to construct an elegant system.  That said, my goal for the combat system is 20 pages and about 250 for the entire game.

* If I can ever finish one of my damn systems, I see no reason to NOT polish it and distribute it to others.  After all, these games are intended to be functional for gaming.  I imagine making a free PDF would be a good start. 

Around 250 pages--cool. You're certainly in good company.

As regards to others playing your game, I'm not really clear from your answer above. I can't work out if you're being modest, or if you really don't mind whether anyone plays your game or not.

Let me give some context. I spend hours every week designing rpg subsystems. Sometimes I put these together as a more or less "complete game" but mostly I don't. I used to think it was because I wanted to design games but I've realized I just like designing game mechanics. It's relaxing for me, like other people do sudoku or crosswords.

To convert that activity to an actual, playable game requires a whole new level of commitment and focus, plus something completely new: other people. You can't design a playable rpg of any worth without extensive playtesting.

Getting that playable game into the hands of an audience beyond your immediate group (and actually having them play it) requires an even greater jump in time, effort & focus by you, plus a whole new bundle of additional skills.

To me each of these is an equally worthwhile pursuit, but they call for different response to your posts about your game.

So how much do you want this game to be played by others?

Best, Charles

How much I want the game to played by others is contingent upon me devising a fully-functional concept that is superb in my own and others' eyes.  Take my work on Nevercast, for example.  I have recieved a significant amount of positive feedback, so I think it is worthy of being polished up for many others to play.  I even have a cover-design in mind that I believe will really suck people into this imaginary world: a mandala with the Outworlder god Pio Mon in the center on a throne, holding a sword in one hand and an assault rifle in the other (inspired by the famous Black Panther picture).  The only problem is that the mental effort required to finish the finely-grained mechanics is beyond my current threshold.  So I decided to scale back a bit and do a design experiment with a simpler chassis; the exercise being how complex, tactical, and quick-to-resolve I can design a system with such a lean core.  The playtests for such a system, the one you see here, will inform me on how to proceed with Nevercast's design.  However, even before playtesting has actually commenced, I believe that I was too successful in my experiment.  It is in my opinion that the core rules I have designed for this system are far more elegant than Nevercast's - in fact, simply better.  So now, I feel compelled to construct a world around these mechanics.  If I am satisfied with the results after playtesting, I will most certainly want to make a complete product for others to play.

To give you a simple answer, all of my game concepts are intended to evolve into full games for others to play.  If I seem like just a designer of concepts, that is because I don't expect any of my games to be finished anytime soon, which is why "just for fun" is my modus operandi at this point.

Hi Christoper,

OK. If your rules as presented are meant to be at the "just-for-fun" level, you can do whatever you want with them. The only criteria is that they satisfy your own internal aesthetic. Not much for me to add here except go for it and have fun.

If intended for other players, then mechanics on their own can only support what your game is about; they can't "be" what your game is about.

You've proposed your game will be about:

* A sprawling demonology with complex personalities, hierarchies, and motives, and the manner in which humans interact with them. 
* The impact of abusive magic on the landscape.
* The pursuit of prestige and influence.
* Highly lethal combat that takes the form of robust tactical skirmishes predominantly against opponents who are thinking, reasoning combatants.  I intend for the system to be able to handle large numbers of opponents without breaking down.

charles wrote:
If intended for other players, then mechanics on their own can only support what your game is about; they can't "be" what your game is about.

I would also say that the amount of detail and space (not always the same thing) that each subsystem take up in your ruleset should directly reflect the priority you place on that element in actual play.

Hi Christoper

Thanks for writing the above, it gives me a much clearer idea of your priorities at this point.

If I now asked you for a phrase that clearly articulates one single, powerful idea that sums up what you want your game to be about, what would it be?

As examples, here's what I'd write for the games below:

Early D&D: venturing into perilous dungeons in search of loot
HeroQuest: playing a character inextricably linked to their community in a world of myth and magic
Sorcerer: summoning demons and the effect that has on the sorcerer's humanity
Burning Wheel: playing a character whose passions and beliefs propel them through a gritty fantasy world

Cheers, charles

Your question is admittedly a difficult one.  Perhaps, "political ambition, glory in battle, and the flames of hell".

Cool. I'm taking the priority you listed as significant. This is important, because each session the players of your game will have a fixed amount of both real-time, and of mental real-estate. Each in-game activity will consume both of these, leaving less of them for other things.

With this in mind, this is what springs to my mind as a "to-do list" for this game:

1.political ambition
* strong setting (you've got those ideas already)
* chargen that root the characters deeply into the setting
* a way to make the players care about succeeding: like a clear character goal, ideally that can be in opposition to other PC goals
* mechanics that allow the creation / evolution of political crises
* mechanics that propel the characters into the current political situation
* strong social conflict resolution mechanics

2. glory in battle
* if you mean "battle" literally, then smooth mechanics to handle mass combat
* a way to award PCs accolades resulting from the outcomes of combat--this is the "glory" part. A way to feed these accolades directly into (1) -- advancing (or dashing) the PC's political ambitions
* enough crunch to give combat the "weight" you want without bogging down play and distracting from point (1)

3 the flames of hell
* strong setting elements about Hell& it's denizens
* how this interfaces with the mortal world, specifically how it can aid/hinder points (1) & (2)
* provide very strong temptations to use (either directly or by proxy) hell & it's denizens to advance points (1) & (2) -- but with the mechanically eforced risk that this will send your PC to hell themselves. Ie, to literally expereicne the "flames of hell"

This will probbaly require some complexity but I don't it has to be monstrously so. It's all to do with figuring out which parts of your game you can simplify. Simple, BTW, can also be powerful. I think it could surely be done in a hundred pages or less, including enough setting to start play.

The only other thing I'd put out there is this: RPGs have no "zero-sum" mechanics. Every rule you include in your game that doesn't support and propel forward your core theme is a distraction and a dead weight, and activly drags your game down.

Just my 2 cents, hope it's useful.

Charles

On Political Ambition
- One thing I am surely reticent to include in any of my simulationist RPG designs are well-defined gameplay structures.  I feel that they do no justice to the open-endedness I intend to present.  Sure, you may have character types that are likely to fall into a distinct habit of gameplay, but this is a natural extension of the character rather than imposed via metagame elements.  Therefore, there will be no "mechanics that propel the characters into the current political situation"; that is entirely up to the GM and his interaction with the players.  The politics are just *there*.  The magic is just *there*.  The demons are just *there*.  It's the GM's prerogative to decide if, when, or how to invoke these elements.

- It appears that the points you bring up in regards to this subject have strong narrativist implications about them.  I say this without intending any sort of condescension, and if the focus of my game were centered on character and plot, I would undoubtedly address those points you've mention within the system's workings.  However, I feel that for this particular RPG, metagame structures should be kept to a minimum; the virtue of the system being internal logic.

On Glory in Battle
- The mass combat discussion can be found here.

- Crunchy is what I do best.  Speed of resolution is applied by smoothing over petty details; having a separate table for which toe I cut off is not necessary for engaging combat.  For example, instead of having specific maneuvers, such as “thrust” or “parry”, I’ve introduced generalized tactical patterns for the combatant to adopt into his strategy, such as “covered attack” or “open guard”.  When you make a combat action, it is assumed that you are utilizing a wide variety of movements in order to harm and hamper your opponent rather than just one.  Therefore, any general tactic is the average effectiveness of all of your learned stances and postures.
Despite the lack of a large variety of generalized tactics, there are many different ways you can combine them in order to maximize your versatility and effectiveness.  Because every weapon you decide to utilize has its own unique makeup (in regards to mechanics), and because the circumstances in which you are engaged in combat are constantly changing, determining which combinations are appropriate is essential to your survival. 
Take note that these dynamics are not intended to provide tactical balance via arbitrary tweaking (the Rock, Paper, Scissors approach), but are a natural byproduct of attempting to simulate Renaissance combat methods.

On The Flames of Hell
- The Medieval period is inextricably attached to romantic black and white connotations, with Joan of Arc, Arthurian legend, and codes of chivalry making the time period attractive for epic Good vs. Evil themes.  The Renaissance may very easily be its antithesis, as its figures and events strongly evoke shades of gray: Good Queen Bess executing her cousin; devout Spanish soldiers raping and pillaging the western hemisphere; the humanist St. Thomas More burning heretics. 
Thus, in order to stay consistent with the aesthetic, I make it a point that the existence of Heaven, Hell, God, or Satan - or any analogue for that matter - is never made clear.  These abominations that sometimes come out of the earth or possess bodies may simply be natural spirits (like a dryad) that have become warped as a result of abusing magic.  Sorcerers are quite aware of this possibility, which is why many of them maintain an atheist or agnostic stance (another reason is that magic produces very tangible results, whereas prayers and blessings do not).

Hi Christopher

First a disclaimer: the below represents my best understanding of design theory here at the Forge. If any experienced forum members see any errors, please correct them.

First up, I don't take your post as condescending--so cool.

But I believe you're confusing some Forge terms in your posts. This is only important inasmuch as you & I (and others posting) want to have a meaningful discussion using those terms. If we do, we have to be using the same definitions. Otherwise we need to avoid those terms, because they'll create a lot of smoke but no light.

Specifically:
* CA, or Creative Agenda (that is: Simulationist-Gamist-Narrativist) is something that occurs at the table when a game is played. CA can be thought of as the primary aesthetic goal of a specific, individual player in a given moment of gameplay.
* Individual mechanics (in the Forge Glossary, Techniques) are not and cannot "have" a CA in an of themselves. They can only, in tandem with all other elements of the game system, make a specific CA easier or harder to reach.
* the designer can (and according to Forge thinking, should) aim to promote a specific type of CA with specific mechanics, but you can't say "Because I aim for realism in combat, my game is Simulationist". That's because CA only exists at the table during a specific, actual instance of play. At that point, it doesn't really matter (in CA terms) what your intentions were. What matters is the kind of play that is actually taking place. A ruleset that reliably produces gameplay which matches your intended CA (in Forge terms, a ruleset that is highly Coherent) is something of a holy grail of Forge-inspired design.

As an example of what I'm saying: the Burning Wheel fantasy rpg has combat mechanics that are (at minimum) every bit as gritty, crunchy and "realistic" as what you've posted so far. But the ruleset of that game is designed to drive Narrativist play.

I wasn't intending to get all into Forge theory, but I don't see any way to comment meaningfully on your previous post without establishing some common ground.

Cheers, Charles

Sim-gam-nar precedes Forge articles and theory.  Others have said that I seem to be confusing Forge terms, but that is because I am not necessarily using Forge terms; there can be no exclusive claim.  A quick search of “RPG Design Theory” and you’ll soon find a substantial body of theories that utilize the same or a similar vernacular.  Furthermore, I do not agree with Ron's theories on game design.  The vast majority of readers don't understand the convoluted and esoteric language, so what's the point in trying to speak in a manner that my interlocutors don't understand?  Observing numerous exchanges on the subject here at the Forge, it appears that most prefer the simplified concept of the terms, and most of their interlocutors understand the message they are trying to convey when used as such.  When I use these terms, it is because they are terms that Forge members recognize, and it saves me time trying to explain what I mean over and over again.

I don’t intend to try to change your mind (I certainly would like to avoid a debate about RPG design theory!), only to demonstrate the point of view from which I speak, which will help clarify what I meant from my earlier post.

Thus, when I say my game is simulationist, I mean that the game is intended to simulate a Renaissance world; to suspend disbelief.  Many mechanical devices within the game are therefore conducive to simulationist play, including the combat system, which is intended to simulate Renaissance fighting methods.

The narrativist vertex of the three-point model evolves from an earlier “storytelling” vertex.  When I say the points you’ve made on the subject of politics in the game had strong narrativist implications, I mean that including the mechanics you’ve presented would fundamentally alter the nature of my game.  With such an alteration, my game would be more conducive to storytelling - that is, metagame mechanics (mechanics that are concerned with what happens at the table rather than inside of the world) place a heavy emphasis on character and plot, oftentimes in a contrived manner to make these elements more exciting.  I believe that metagame mechanics largely contradict simulationist design criteria.  In my opinion, a simulationist world should feel as if it operates independently of the player characters. 

For clarity, any further posts from me will be absent of RPG design theory terms.  In order to avoid confusion, I’ll skip the shortcuts and speak as concretely as possible.

Hi Christoper

When you say

Ar wrote:
Sim-gam-nar precedes Forge articles and theory. Others have said that I seem to be confusing Forge terms, but that is because I am not necessarily using Forge terms; there can be no exclusive claim. 

For clarity, any further posts from me will be absent of RPG design theory terms.  In order to avoid confusion, I’ll skip the shortcuts and speak as concretely as possible.

Thus, when I say my game is simulationist, I mean that the game is intended to simulate a Renaissance world; to suspend disbelief.  Many mechanical devices within the game are therefore conducive to simulationist play, including the combat system, which is intended to simulate Renaissance fighting methods.

In my opinion, a simulationist world should feel as if it operates independently of the player characters. 

When I say the points you’ve made on the subject of politics in the game had strong narrativist implications, I mean that including the mechanics you’ve presented would fundamentally alter the nature of my game. 

With such an alteration, my game would be more conducive to storytelling - that is, metagame mechanics (mechanics that are concerned with what happens at the table rather than inside of the world) place a heavy emphasis on character and plot, oftentimes in a contrived manner to make these elements more exciting. 

Metagame
- If it seems like I implied that metagame invariably leads to storytelling design, then I rescind the remark which made such an inference.  It is absurd to try to construct a functional role playing game without some metagame structure.  For example, knowing who has narrative control and when is absolutely tantamount to any system's playability, otherwise the flow of the game would be a completely disorganized, argumentative mess.  Designating "GM" and "player" status is a classic metagame element that is fundamental to many systems.
However, let's stick with the "whatever happens at the table rather than inside the world" definition of the word metagame, and I'll apply that definition to certain points you've made:

“strong setting (you've got those ideas already)”
- Clearly, by the definition I’ve agreed to use of metagame, this is quite the opposite.  We’re agreed here.

“chargen that root the characters deeply into the setting”
- This could go either way.  If I choose to emulate Pendragon, for example, then that would be a good method of going about it.  I have a particular prejudice of assuming that everyone on the Forge thinks that games focused on story are the only worthwhile designs.  I’ll make sure not to do that with you in future posts.

“a way to make the players care about succeeding: like a clear character goal, ideally that can be in opposition to other PC goals”
- If the players and GM are not doing this themselves, then it would appear arbitrary.  This is a good point you make, but I wasn’t sure if you meant in a mechanical manner or not.  If the latter, then I fully accept your point and I will make sure to include this in the game mastering section.  If the former, then I feel the metagame will superimpose its values over the internal logic.  But let’s say we put these things in the background, like, “Here are some ways that you, as a GM, can stir the players’ motivations”, then there‘s no perceived outside manipulation, and disbelief is suspended.

“mechanics that allow the creation / evolution of political crises” and  “mechanics that propel the characters into the current political situation”
- These two are what I was really being a stickler about.  If you have an idea to implement this via internal logic, I am most certainly open to suggestions.  However, I personally cannot conceive of how.

“strong social conflict resolution mechanics”
- I have no problem with this.  This will fit perfectly within the confines of skill usage.  The design criteria for social interaction will be to ensure that it feels like an organic experience rather than playing a game; there will be no social hit points or any other sort of exaggerated mechanical construct.

That "heavy emphasis on character and plot" is in any way the same thing in my mind as story-priority play…There's a type of play that centres around a predefined plot (often called, or tied to, a metaplot). This plot is constructed and/or executed by the GM. The player's job is to propel their PCs from one plot element to another, to eventually arrive at the climax. I've read a number of blogs that talk a lot about "narrativist" or "story-driven" play, where this style of play (and only this style) is what they mean.

Hi Christopher

Sorry I haven't had the opportunity to respond earlier. I'll get some thoughts down while I can.

I'm still a little confused about exactly what kind of metagame elements (in concrete terms) you don't want, but I don't think that's a huge deal right now.  I'll just list some ideas that occur to me. If they're stuff your opposed to on principle then let me know.

Char Gen
If you want the top priority of your game to be Political Ambition, it seems to me something evocative that hooks deep into your setting could be a good fit. I'm thinking a lifepath system could be excellent for this. My inspiration for this suggestions is Traveller (classic Sim). Many other games use it also of course.

Something that you've a couple of times is the ease of PC death. This seemed odd to me given that your char creation seems quite complex, as is your combat, and I infer from that your skill system will be as well. You seem to want your players to heavily engage in the setting (deep char creation, crunchy setting & skills seems a classic sim-priority way of trying to achieve that). However heavy engagement and lots of time invested in character creation & advancement is usually not very compatible with easy PC death IMO.

You also mentioned players running stable of chars to avoid downtime in the even of PC death. I see this as also (normally) working against heavy player investment.

Maybe you could use "scions": if your PC dies, another PC (perhaps prepared earlier, or mostly so) could step in to carry on the first PC's political ambitions. Thus, the player is really playing a mini-dynasty or cabal (perhaps related by blood, perhaps not). Their goal is to accomplish some ambition that may be bigger than a single character.

Making The Players Care About Succeeding
This can be as simple the early D&D model: give characters XP for killing monsters & gaining treasure, and a clear advancement path that ramps up their power levels for doing so. IMO players should have a clear goal of play in any rpg, and be rewarded for pursuing it. Note from my example above: this is the PLAYERS caring about succeeding, NOT the characters. That's quite a separate thing. Many story-driven games have a character goal like "I must revenge my murdered lover" and then give the character metagame currency (Plot Points or whatever) as a reward for pursuing this goal. This definitely can motivate the players in some situations but this is absolutely not what I'm suggesting.

I believe there are many other ways to get your players clear about the kind of rpg activities your game is designed to best support, and then get them  excited about doing those things in-game. Char gen can directly inspire players. It should also clearly show them the types of activities their characters can and should be able to achieve. Character advancement is the same. I think both these areas are often taken for granted but I think they have the potential to MASSIVELY pump your players and power your game.

For example, if about political ambition you can have direct support in your game mechanics to support political advancement: leading armies, joining factions, initiating & surviving plot/intrigues/assassination attempts, supporting (or opposing) governments &/or rulers, weathering royal / societal disfavor, the rise and fall of fortune and so on. This COULD be done in exhaustive detail but there' no reason it has to always be so: a simple mechanic well supported to create synergies in other areas can be stronger than reams of complex rules.

It's possible that many of these could be handled by analogs of  D&D Enounter Tables, frex. Or the GM could set up a timeline: in six weeks, the Sargs will invade Coronia.

These also lead into the concepts of "mechanics that allow the creation / evolution of political crises"

What I meant by the above is that if Political Ambition is a major arena, I would consider 2 things to be vital:

1) ways to allow the PCs to engage in that arena. Their actions must effect (that doesn't mean control) the political situation
2) mechanics to allow things outside of the PCs control to also contribute to this. This is part of the gameworld's "pushback"

I think this can all (or at least a lot of it) be done in a sim-priority way. At least, I'm absolutely not convinced that it can't.

Sorry for the quickness of this post. It's been rushed, so it's not polished and may be somewhat sloppy. Time's short for me at the moment, so it was this or nothing I'm afraid. I hope there's something of value.

Cheers, Charles

((I'll get to the other topics in the following post.))
Character Generation
- This is a simple and painless process.  In order to make all aspects of the system streamlined for high-bandwidth play, I hacked away a significant amount of commonplace RPG boardgamey elements; no stats, no hit points, no traits, no powers, no character levels.  You have your class (literally: noble, yeoman, etc.) to dictate your resources and best profession, and then your profession to dictate your high-level skills and starting equipment.  This is not a pimp-my-character system; there are no hard choices to make as they are choices of personal preference rather than min/maxing.  Furthermore, I feel that it would be best for the purposes of such a lithe system that the character be a nebulous concept during generation, and then become progressively more defined throughout gameplay.  This will also help ease the conscience of a GM who enjoys murdering his players (including me). 

Character Advancement
My initial idea is to allow advancement once every six months in game time.  Your actual experiences will help you to improve general ability, and purchased training will allow you to develop skilled maneuvers, spells, etc.  During this time, you may also be able to commission elaborate pieces of equipment (such as full and fitted suits of armor or exquisite weapons).

I love the idea of emergent character building in rpgs.

How do you intend, mechanically speaking, for PCs to become progressively more defined throughout gameplay?

I haven't intended for any mechanical changes.  However, if a character earns a title, there would most likely be a tangible difference in his resources, among other things.  Perhaps there may be a special knighthood for adventurers, who will be granted trans-national powers as well as legal immunities.  This knighthood may be granted to those, irrespective of birth, who demonstrate skill and resourcefulness in capturing, killing, or banishing demons and warlocks.  They would be like continental privateers.  The appeal of such a knighthood will allow you to employ mercenaries for free, as they are eagar to earn this title themselves. 

On Player Lethality
- Lethal combat systems are my response to a neverending well of RPGs (tabletop and console) that have characters wailing away at each other with swords as if these tools of war were made out of plastic.  Have you ever seen what happens when a sword actually hits something?  Because my intention is to simulate, and because the object of the simulation is the Renaissance, I must construct the combat system to play out the same way as is demonstrated and documented.  This means that without armor, a single blow from any of these weapons, even indirectly, is likely to kill or maim you.

But just because it's easy to be killed in the game does not mean that the players will not enjoy themselves.  Ron Edwards wrote a review of the RPG Godlike, which has many similarities to my game in its approach.  In the review, Ron writes:

“I think it's significant that my current players are clamoring for backup characters, and none of them have had a character die yet. Given the context of their request, I read it as looking forward to character deaths and their consequences on the drama and ongoing integrity of the many-protagonist storyline (to use the term loosely)“
“These rules bring up the point that combat has three outcomes: a character is dinged up, flipped out (which at least removes the character from the immediate action, maybe worse), or killed (subset: horribly maimed).”

After reading this and other reviews of the system, I am confident that a lethal system can be very fun provided that character death is not synonymous with extensive player downtime.  Thus, character creation in my game is intended to be a fast and streamlined process.  Furthermore, without character levels, hit points, and all other sorts of buffs that typically go along with them, a new character will be able to join in without feeling hopelessly underpowered.  Thus, the transition to a new character should be smooth. 
((On a side note, I like your “scion” idea.  I’ll hold on to that one for future reference.))

If I may add an opinion on the 'scions' idea, I think that there's room to go further. I think a dark game about political intrigue and ambition should certainly have mechanics for people, particularly family, as retainers and allies. Having a child in the cleregy could give you the ear of higher ranking members in the chruch, a son in the military adds to your credibility, and gives you a (potentially) loyal retainer, not the mention the huge significance of marriage in politics. I think family in particular is sadly overlooked part of gameplay, and I would be very interested to see more takes on it

Political ambition is not assumed of all characters.  Take note that not everyone will choose the noble class, which is the class most likely to engage in political trifles.  Why?  Because choosing another class grants you the opportunity to begin the game as specialized.  For example, you may decide to become a sorcerer who has just finished his apprenticeship, and although you do not have a large repertoire of spells, your skill level would be maxed out.  Or perhaps you might be an oriental mercenary who's mastered the spear, horse riding, and unarmed combat.

However, I like your idea of family members as scions.  Your nephew could be your squire.  Your only child, a daughter and a sorcerer's apprentice, might be the sole inheritor of your household should you die on one of your adventuring excursions.  In this way, second and third generation characters may start out with more resources at their disposal.  Thus, a first generation may become a Knight Adventurer, the second generation may use that momentum to earn a noble title, the third generation may become an earl, and the fourth may marry and become a duchess.

Perhaps I can take a note from Pendragon and have a campaign span from 1450 to 1550.  As another aside, perhaps players may not start out as the noble class at all, and can only earn it or be born into it during the course of the campaign.

Hi Christopher

When I asked

How do you intend, mechanically speaking, for PCs to become progressively more defined throughout gameplay?

I haven't intended for any mechanical changes.  However, if a character earns a title, there would most likely be a tangible difference in his resources, among other things. 

the character be a nebulous concept during generation, and then become progressively more defined throughout gameplay.

I would like to interject first hand experience with high lethality game systems. A friend made a home brew to simulate fast paced modern combat for individuals and small groups. The design goal was literally Counter-Strike for the table top. Character design was not as indepth as some systems I've seen, but it still had the trappings of stats, skill lists, special abilities, and backstory which was often played out in a mini-session with the GM. All and all average chargen was an hour and any character could be killed in as little as two rolls of the dice. Damage for any weapon was 1d100 and typically anything in the 90's was instant death. The result was some of the most memorable characters anyone in the gaming groups I've played with ever had. The fact that they had to put a good deal of thought into a character, then throw it into a situation of very likely death, forced players to really consider what they were doing in game. Sessions played out like scenes from Ronin or The Professional, and everyone knew the high potential of having a character die. Each session you survived made that character more and more memorable and made them a stronger character as the players became more immersed in the setting.
it's been close to 6 years since last anyones played, but I don't doubt that the people involved can remember in startling detail ever mission they were in since it was often an adrenaline rush the entire time. I've yet to be in a game that has capture my attention as much since I doubt my character will die at all. If i'm playing some sorta chosen hero, these goblins I'm fighting aren't going to kill me, the GM won't let that happen. I might die dramatically against some end game villain, but until then I'm not going to sweat it.

* I don't see anything to drive play. Your game isn't driven by story or competition (Step On Up). So far as I can see it's not driven by PC advancement or, at this stage, PC-identification. What will drive play?
- I do not believe that any element other than a GM is required in order to drive play.  Whether the resultant play is compelling or not is another story.  Thus, my game designs are always created with the GM’s perspective in mind, and not the players.  From my extensive past experiences as a GM and from studying other games in action, I’ve learned that you can turn your sessions into virtual crack even with broken systems, as long as you’re a good GM. 
In my opinion, the GM makes the game; the GM drives play.  Of course, to put all the weight on him is absolutely poor game design, especially since not all GMs can be expected to be so skillful.  So to bridge the gap between system and GM, the rules are intended to provide him the tools he needs to do his part well.  There are two methods I utilize in order to create the GM’s toolset.  The first is research, and the second is rules-intelligence.  I’ll elaborate upon these things in my next post.

* You list Political Ambition as the first in a list of things your game is "about", and yet you don't seem to want to include any mechanics to make it central to play. So what is central to play, and how will your rule set communicate & power that?
- Nothing is central to play.  When I said what the game is about and what the design priorities were, it was a conjecture based upon what I perceive will be the natural progression of play as a result of the setting’s influences.  Thus, to design rules that will allow these things to be played out with accuracy is my prerogative.

* you describe your combat as lean and fast, but it seems crunchy and time-consuming to me. If your design requires fast, lean combat  (and it may not--I'm only posing this because your other comments suggest that may be an underlying assumption), I think you need to either rethink your combat mechanics, or question whether you do in fact need fast combat.
- If you read my earlier combat concepts in this thread, you’ll notice that combatants tend to get taken out of the fight in a single roll of the die.  If you’ve noticed in my mechanics discussions, book keeping is non-existent: there are no hit points, no action points, no stats, no laundry lists of powers and abilities, no initiative, and no mana pools or spell tracking.  Formulas and arithmetic are simply unnecessary for my design goals.
If my designs seem cumbersome, it’s because my simulations by necessity must be complex in order to emulate with accuracy.  But complexity should not be confused with inefficiency - on the contrary, I’ve realized that complexity can actually improve the efficiency of a subsystem.  Increased complexity has allowed me to hack away book keeping which is primarily responsible for slowing down combat.
In contrast, I’ve simplified the microscopic scale of combat, as I’ve realized the detailed minutiae serve the purpose of color but don’t profoundly contribute to the outcome, not to mention the combat molasses that occurs.  As a result, I’ve left all the detailed coloring up to the GM and players, if they’re so inclined, but in such a way that it doesn’t have a mechanical effect upon the unraveling of events.  As a byproduct, the interactivity of encounters is also improved.

* your combat system appears to mix crunch with a requirement for players to narrate their combat actions. Im my experience, gamers who are passionate about one of these are often uncomfortable with the other. Not saying this can't or shouldn't be done, just that it raised a question mark with me. If my experiences are typical, it could significantly narrow your potential audience. This may not be an issue for you, but it's something to think about if you havn't already.
- This is not a requirement.  The player simply has the freedom to do so.  If he doesn’t, no matter, as it makes no tangible difference.

Specifically: a standard driver of Sim-priority games is typically strong player-identification with their character. It's not the only one, although it does seem to be a good fit with the game you've outlined so far. Regardless: if you weaken that with easy PC death and sketchy char gen, then you need to either:
1) strengthen player-identification in other ways, &/or
2) replace player-identification with a different, equally powerful driver
- From reading of others’ experiences of high-lethality systems (take Horomancer’s post, for instance), I’m inclined to believe that the opposite is true of what you claim: that easy PC death weakens player-identification with their character.  It seems to me that naturally heavier consequences lead the players to make more realistic choices for their characters, and thus the character appears to be more human. 

Research and Rules-Intelligence: Components of the Game Master's Toolset
The game's rules are inclined heavily towards the goal of helping the GM create his own adventures without imposing rigid structures; to create his own signature of expression.  Towards this end, my designs make two assumptions: that the GM isn't necessarily an effective storyteller, and that the GM may not be able to form a coherent picture of the setting.  The rationale behind these assumptions is that a strong supporting structure will allow poor or mediocre GMs to create engaging sessions and campaigns.  Therefore, part of my design philosophy will be based upon them.

Research
In order to make the world come alive, a great deal of research is being invested into its creation.  Everything from daily life in the Renaissance to Machiavellian politics to warfare will be considered, and this research will inform the GM on how to construct his own campaign without having to make things up which could potentially break immersion. 

Rules-Intelligence
A mere reference guide is not enough, however.  The GM needs to know the inherent behavior of setting elements and how they interact with other elements.  For example, NPC types will have scripts (methods of conduct) that will make their actions and reactions towards the player characters believable.  How enemy combatants organize themselves against you, what methods of persuasion work best on NPC types, and how NPCs may become interested or involved in your activities are some scripts that will be available for the GM's consideration.  In effect, rules will be composed in such a way that GMs will not need to micromanage props and actors, and also in such a way that events may progress in a natural, almost spontaneous manner.

Naturally, these components can be found in many RPG designs; this is not an innovative concept.  However, the point I’m trying to stress is that all effort will be made to give the GM the tools he needs to make play engaging and motivate players.  My previous interlocutor stated that he sees nothing within the game that will drive play.  He is correct.  Indeed, there is nothing inherent within the system to drive play - that element lies outside of the rules, and for the sake of the integrity of my simulation, the system will remain free of bias towards any particular gameplay direction.

Demonology
What the Church refers to as demons are actually natural spirits.  These spirits, who have become warped as a result of abusive practice of magic, may be of bizarre forms and twisted mentalities.  Their motives are uncertain, but rarely are they to the immediate benefit of mankind.  Demons have no bodies, and as such, may inhabit animals, plants or trees, or even people.  The Church, as well as sorcerers and warlocks, have compiled demonologies of documented spirits and explain in exhaustive detail their past history, habits, personalities, hierarchies, and domains.
Within a demon’s domain, the flora and fauna of the landscape may also be affected.  Animals may transform into monstrous abominations (errantly referred to as demons by the common populace), water may become undrinkable, and plants inedible.  As a spirit can command or inhabit plants and animals to do its bidding, so may a demon.  A demon, however, is inclined towards inhabiting a willing human’s body in a symbiotic bond, as a human form, especially that of a sorcerer, is most capable of exercising the demon’s power.
Since demons are immaterial spirits, they cannot be killed by normal means, although whoever or whatever it occupies can certainly be destroyed.  Demons are bound to their domains, and thus, may only diminish as their domains do.

Demons and the Church
Since demons are extremely dangerous, the Church has created an order of knights specifically for the purpose of identifying, hunting, exorcising, or eradicating them.  This order is financed entirely by secular organizations, by states in particular, for their expertise and their low cost in comparison to other professional mercenaries.  Many pious adventurers have heeded the call, and the order’s number steadily grows. 
Naturally, demons have employed their own human forces to counter the Church’s offensive measures.  Men-at-arms under the employ of demons are referred to as black knights, whereas sorcerers are referred to as warlocks, or oath-breakers.  Typically, these forces aren’t directly compensated by the demon itself, but by proxies (such as a warlock) who are offered some of the demon’s power in exchange.
Since demons have a near monopoly on magical muscle, the Church finds itself at great difficulty successfully combating demonic forces.  As a result, the Church has reluctantly resorted to hiring and even training professional sorcerers in order to keep pace.  Unfortunately, this action has created an internal philosophical rift between the clergy, as many regard sorcery as profane and blasphemous.  A demon’s emissaries may use this to its advantage and coax hostilities between the factions.  At the moment, the Church is a powder keg waiting to explode as the factions may engage in open conflict at any time.

Demons and Spirits
Although they are of the same origins, pure spirits find themselves threatened by demons, as their unnatural influence may spread to untouched domains.  Demons may not necessarily have divergent motives from normal spirits, but as they profoundly become more anthro-centric, the risk of domain imperialism becomes more likely (in order for a demon to tap into more power to serve its goals), and thus, more landscapes may become tainted.
As spirits are suspicious of humans, they tend to be very discriminating as to who they choose as their champions to combat this blight.  Therefore, spirits are at a striking disadvantage.  However, a GM may want to exploit this fact and possibly have the Church, or at least members of the Church, ally themselves with spirits.

Hierarchy
Demonic spirits have naturally fallen into an imperialistic structure.  Instead of engaging in territorial warfare with other demons, weaker spirits often willingly become vassals to those with larger or more powerful domains.  As demons are not terribly materialistic or hedonistic in their desires (although there are a few exceptions, such as those with domains in close proximity to large cities), this structure has proven to be extremely efficient.
Echelons (from highest rank to lowest):
Arch Demon (i.e. emperor)
King
Arch Duke
Duke
Marquess
Earl
Count
Baron

Character Creation
This is a simple process, as you don't have to muck around with stats or powers and such.  The general idea is to choose your profession and where you come from, as these factors influence your skill set and starting resources.  Also, since some characters are lazier or have fewer time or opportunities than others to sharpen their skills, I'm going to throw fairness to the wind and utilize a roll mechanic for starting skill points and resources rather than a static point-buy system.  You can still be a very effective character even with low rolls (your character is a professional, after all, and the system doesn‘t lend itself to min-maxing), so I’m not worried about this factor breaking gameplay or even encouraging fudged rolls.

Class
Your first character begins play in the social classes below nobility: yeomen or gentry.  Although it is possible to rise in social hierarchy with your first character, it is more likely that the descendants of your adventurers will be able to play as knights or nobles, who will start out with larger skill sets and greater resources.  Building a legacy is the equivalent of leveling up.

Profession
There are four playable professions to choose from as a starting character.  These are: Man-at-Arms, Metaphysician, Scholar, and Thief.  These professions are not rigid, and there are no complex rules to limit you from branching out.  However, reaching a respectable level of skill in any other professional discipline requires a character to invest several years building its basics.
Each profession provides its own set of professional skills as well as practical experience within these fields (practical experience is important for maintaining performance while under pressure). 

Man-at-Arms
Whether a mercenary, veteran soldier, brigand, or sergeant-at-arms, the Man-at-Arms is highly skilled and experienced in the ways of personal combat.  He rarely falters in the face of extreme danger and knows how to effectively employ many different weapons.  Since a sound body is required for such a physically demanding profession, the Man-at-Arms is typically in excellent shape as well.  Also, maintaining equipment and building structures in the field, such as siege equipment or bridges, are expected of any combat character, especially those who have been in military service.  Finally, the Man-at-Arms is likely to have traveled a great deal, so he is well-suited to living off the land.  Thus, the Man-at-Arms’ professional skill categories are “combat“, “conditioning“, “craftsmanship“, and “survival”.
Characters in this profession start out with their own set of armor and weapons (indigenous to region), as well as tools for maintaining their equipment and thriving in the wilderness.  As for money, fighting men are prone to drinking and gambling (amongst other vices; life is short for one who lives by the sword), and therefore begin play with the least of all the professions.

Metaphysician
Also referred to colloquially as a sorcerer, the Metaphysician has spent many years in a guild studying and practicing arcane metaphysics.  Understanding this wickedly complex discipline requires an extremely sharp mind, so the metaphysician must also study a very broad range of intellectual disciplines, such as natural philosophy, ancient languages, and even musical composition.  As a result, the sorcerer begins play with a very limited spell book, although he has already built the foundation to expand it in the future at a swift rate.
The Metaphysician’s professional skill categories are “Metaphysics” as well as various disciplines within the “Academics” group.
Characters in this profession start out with a spell book, in which the player selects the spells, a customized sorcerer’s staff, and components for casting spells.  Since their skills are in high demand, the sorcerer begins play with the most money.  However, equipment and components for spell craft are rare and very expensive, so it balances out.

Scholar
A quintessential Renaissance Man, the Scholar is master of several intellectual disciplines.  He is well-read, well-spoken, and although he may not be terribly useful in a fight, he does a great job of sorting out the aftermath.  Although adventuring isn’t well-suited to this particular type of person, he may see it as a great opportunity to expand his mind and gain prestige, especially if his field of expertise lie in demonological research.
The Scholar boasts every discipline within the “Academics” group as a professional skill category, which gives this character type a great deal of versatility in play style.  He may be a lawyer who can get the thief out of trouble, an engineer who designs complex magical equipment for the sorcerer, a physician who tends to the wounds and subsequent fevers of the man-at-arms, or perhaps all three.
Characters in this profession start out with a fairly large amount of money, a customized set of equipment, and a strong network of colleagues.

Thief
Being a career criminal in this time period is often a short-lived endeavor; punishment is often very harsh, and so are the people such an individual associates with.  Therefore, the professional Thief has a sharply-honed repertoire of skills that separates him from other criminals.  Aside from well-developed breaking-and-entering skills and light fingers, he is also effective at escaping those who would pursue him, whether by quick feet or quick talking.  And since he tends to anger the wrong individuals, he’s also good in a street fight, being no stranger to a rapier or fisticuffs.  Particularly educated Thieves may also be able to break codes as well as forge documents, sometimes being employed by legal entities for such rare skills. 
Ironically, legitimate adventuring tends to be a safe investment for the Thief, although he is tempted to smuggle the arcane devices he may come across (a hugely lucrative practice which is often penalized by death).  In a cooperative role, he serves as an excellent compliment to a party as he knows how to circumvent direct confrontation and is good in a fight when things get tough, albeit with a much narrower range of combat skills than the Man-at-Arms.
The Thief’s professional skill categories are “Security”, “Combat” and “Conditioning”. 
Although characters of this profession begin play with quality equipment and fashionable clothes, the Thief tends to be quite frivolous with his money (bribes, drinking, prostitutes, gambling, etc.), much like the Man-at-Arms, and so does not begin with much to start.  Thieves also have a large network of contacts, including fences and smugglers, as well as a few enemies.

As always, Ar Krayon I'm impressed by the amount of thought you've put into your game. With that being said, I had a couple of minor questions. Regarding character generation, what If a player has an idea for a character that seems to require a combination of two profession's skills? For example, say he wants to play a thief whose served as a "procurer" for powerful sorcerers, stealing lore from their rivals to add to their vast collections of grimoires. This player imagines his character as having picked up some academic knowledge, and perhaps even knowledge of some basic magic as a result of being immersed in the dangerous politics of the magical community. What mechanics, if any would allow a player to create such a character with a range of abilities like that?

Also, is there any particular reason why you're using a random roll to determine starting skill points? I understand that it's to model that some people are more skilled/harder working than others, but perhaps there's another way to do it that wouldn't potentially lead to unbalanced characters. I understand that your system is fairly min-max resistant, but trust me when I say that if a system has rules then eventually something will come up that's unbalanced, and mechanics like this exacerbate it (at least in my opinion). Perhaps you could have some sort of trade off system, where players chose between having more skill points and having complications like a powerful rival, or a nasty leg wound from practicing swordplay for 6 hours a day or few complications but fewer skill points. It would increase player choice (which is always a good thing) and simulate the fact that while lazy individuals might not accumulate much in the way of skills, coasting through life is a good way to avoid complications like injuries, rivalries, oaths of fealty, etc.

Example:

Player 1 designs "Sir Augustine" A landed knight in service of the church. A devout Christian, Sir Augustine trained from an early age to combat both mortal heresy and the malevolent works of demons, taking on every quest and assignment that the holy church has given to him with relish. In game terms, he has the complications: Oath of Fealty, Rivalry (with Cardinal Dubane, a conniving priest who envies Sir Augustine his favored position within the church and is jealous of his skill at arms), and Deformity (The right half of his face was withered by a foul warlock's spell before he struck him down, and to this day ladies recoil at his countenance). These complications make his life difficult, but give him far more skill points to start out with.

Player 2 designs "Sir Geoffrey" A landed knight who spends his time pursuing idle pleasures, living off the largess that his departed father bequeathed to him as the first of 3 sons. Sir Geoffrey prefers to pay tribute to his lord rather than lead his forces into battle, not wanting to risk his comfortable lifestyle and pretty face. He has only one complication: Rivalry (His 2 younger brothers), but due to his dissolute style of living has far fewer skill points than Sir Augustine.

Before I directly address your post, I should clarify the reasons behind my design decisions.

1.  Multi-professions
Should a starting character have devoted his time learning two professions, he would likely be a professional of neither.  However, there is some overlap.  The Thief and Man-at-Arms professions overlap, as well as Metaphysician and Scholar.  This is because their skills have similar foundations.  However, if you want to learn a new profession from scratch, it is going to take your character several years to develop a respectable level of skill; it can't be done just by racking up the experience points (character development is the next topic of discussion). 

2.  Skill-point distribution for starting characters
You don't receive a gross roll of skill points upon character creation to distribute wherever.  This is both to prevent min-maxing of professional skills and to make characters more believable.  Instead, you roll how many points you receive for each of your character’s professional skill categories.  These points may then be distributed amongst any specific skill within the category you rolled for, with caps placed on the maximum starting level.  You then get a roll to distribute amongst any non-profession skill. 
The manner in which you roll for skills as well as the practical experience you automatically begin with guarantees that your player will be at a professional level of skill (any Man-at-Arms can kick a middling swordsman‘s ass), no matter how badly he rolls.  The rolls are only there to create a natural deviation of talent and dedication.

Regarding character generation, what If a player has an idea for a character that seems to require a combination of two profession's skills? For example, say he wants to play a thief whose served as a "procurer" for powerful sorcerers, stealing lore from their rivals to add to their vast collections of grimoires. This player imagines his character as having picked up some academic knowledge, and perhaps even knowledge of some basic magic as a result of being immersed in the dangerous politics of the magical community. What mechanics, if any would allow a player to create such a character with a range of abilities like that?

Also, is there any particular reason why you're using a random roll to determine starting skill points? I understand that it's to model that some people are more skilled/harder working than others, but perhaps there's another way to do it that wouldn't potentially lead to unbalanced characters. I understand that your system is fairly min-max resistant, but trust me when I say that if a system has rules then eventually something will come up that's unbalanced, and mechanics like this exacerbate it (at least in my opinion). Perhaps you could have some sort of trade off system, where players chose between having more skill points and having complications like a powerful rival, or a nasty leg wound from practicing swordplay for 6 hours a day or few complications but fewer skill points. It would increase player choice (which is always a good thing) and simulate the fact that while lazy individuals might not accumulate much in the way of skills, coasting through life is a good way to avoid complications like injuries, rivalries, oaths of fealty, etc.

I completely understand your perspective. Trait systems are often open to abuse unless they're very finely tuned to make sure that each one has a substantial impact on the way that the character is played. As a result, I respect your decision to avoid any sort of trait system.

Now in your dissertation on multiple professions I came upon something interesting. You stated that any character could become a sorcerer but would require an extensive education in order to do so, and that spell-casting in your world is akin to quantum physics or neurology, a complex discipline that can only really be understood through extensive study. Now does that mean that folk magic, similar to the simple type of magic practiced by peasants and yeoman in the middle ages and Renaissance does not exist in your world? While it's true that official purveyors of folk magic in the middle ages and Renaissance (called "cunning folk" or "wise men") were often fairly well educated in comparison to those they served, many had nothing more to boast of than the ability to read, and perhaps understand a bit of Latin. And this isn't even including the number of peasants (particularly midwives) who memorized a few simple charms for things like aiding the delivery of babies, protecting against witchcraft, and curing illnesses. Essentially what I'm asking you is if using the premises that your setting is built on if it would be impossible for our lore-gathering thief to teach himself magic using a couple of stolen grimoires?

I'm not in any way trying to be judgmental of your vision, I'm just curious about the metaphysical rules of your setting and their impact on your game's system.

My question regarding folk magic also brings up another question. What recourse, if any do non-magical folk have against demons and the like? Are things like prayers, relics, keeping to the straight and narrow effective against demonic power and if so are they effective against all demons or just against certain individual demons or certain "kinds" of demon? And if they are effective, then how effective are they?

This leads to another question that sort of segues from the second. What other sorts of supernatural creatures besides Demons inhabit your game's setting? Are there Fae? Werewolves? Vampires? Ghosts? Dragons? Jinn? If so, how many of these fall under the general heading of "other spirits" and which are differentiated from the pack? I ask because the middle ages and renaissance were positively chock-full of myths about supernatural creatures, and if you applied the same rigorous standards of research to those myths that you have to the rest of your material, then I think some of those creatures could well enhance your game's setting. I understand however, the desire to avoid "cluttering" the supernatural landscape (ala the Old World of Darkness).

Magic
I've been spending a great deal of time conceptualizing the nature of magic for my setting.  Prior to your post, I hadn't considered folk magic, and I'm on the fence about it now (if it does exist, it will probably have no metaphysical relevance; it's just superstition).  I want to be sure that magic is not ubiquitous in this world; that most people have never or will never see it in their lives.  This quality, in my opinion, gives magic its power: fear, mystique, and awe.

Demons and Virtue
Demons are difficult to understand.  Any unbiased observer will quickly realize that they, as a whole, are not inherently evil.  Thus, virtue and prayer have no tangible effects upon demons.  Prayer has no metaphysical relevance anyway, as ritual does not grasp the profundities of magic.
However, there are instances of the deeply devout who command such power.  It has nothing to do with their virtues or piety, but the sheer forcefulness and creativity in which they employ their minds.  Joan of Arc would be a perfect example, and in this setting, it could explain her surviving her injuries in battle or her visions.
Is this power enough to kill a demon?  No.  They are immaterial spirits, and killing their warlock conduits will only cause them to revert back to their original form.  There are typically 3 ways to get rid of a demon: destroy its domain, capture it, or get another spirit or demon to assimilate its domain completely.  In the case of demonic nobility, who may have several vassal domains, the only feasible choice is to capture it.

Supernatural Creatures
Most myths are just made-up stories about fantastic creatures that don’t exist.  To provide some perspective on the subject, I’ve only seen a skunk twice and a raccoon once in my entire life.  These are regular critters, and apparently they’re all over the place.  Those creatures warped by demonic domains are almost never seen by anyone.  Usually, it’s only someone who is proactively searching for them or looking to make trouble with a demon that will eventually have an encounter.

Supernatural Creatures (cont.)
These strange creatures are neither spirits nor demons.  They are regular animals that have been warped, as flora and fauna are part of a spirit's domain, and are errantly referred to as demons for their fearsome or grotesque appearance.  When they are inhabited by demons, their change is even more dramatic.  I'm tossing about the idea that the concept of a dragon first originated from an inhabited lizard or reptile, perhaps fused together with other animals for maximum utility.  Naturally, this could lead to a large margin of variability, so it would be pointless for me to make an extensive compendium, but rather a method for determining the mechanics of a demonic creature would be most appropriate.

I completely understand your perspective on magic-wanting to avoid what I like to call the "D&D syndrome" of having some manner of spellcaster on every street corner. But I think that you should seriously consider having "hedge magic" have some actual magical worth, for several reasons:

1. It opens up potential story hooks and conflicts for Metaphysician characters. Some might have started out as "Cunning Men", and are now trying to adapt to a far more rigid paradigm that brings with it extensive politics. Some might view hedge mages as threats to the integrity of the Art, some might resent their influence with the common folk and attempt to remove them from the picture (perhaps with the aid of the church), while others might try to reconcile the "high" magic of Metaphysicians with that of the folk-magicians.

2. It allows for more variety in the magic system. "High" magic, can bring with it the awesome and powerful effects that we associate with plays like The Tempest and Dr. Faustus, while the magic of the Cunning Folk is typically far more subtle, improvised, and in many cases simple.

3. Even if folk magic has real power in your setting, it doesn't necessarily lead to the problem of "a mage on every streetcorner". Folk magic may be less pretentious than something out of The Lesser Key of Solomon, but it's still not easy to do by any means. You still need study, and you still need the correct lore. In a setting with working folk magic, I'd imagine that the greatest proportion of say, charms for curing fevers are complete rubbish penned by thieves and conmen who set themselves up as practicioners or else are misinterpretations of valid lore that completely nullifies the charm's power. Say if one in every 100,000 people in your setting is a Metaphysician of some kind (akin to the number of quantum physicists in the world), ranging from those just learning how to invoke spirits to masters of the arcane arts, then perhaps 1 in every 5,000 or 10,000 people has some genuine folk magic knowledge. And this would range from "that crazy old bitch who sickened my cattle by looking at them" to a renowned Cunning Man with an extensive list of clients who seek his help with punishing thieves, finding treasure, curing illnesses. Indeed, having some variety in your magic system keeps magic mysterious and interesting, as characters might not be sure if the man selling them "a tincture of thyme, to ward away the fair folk" is a huckster or if the considerable sum he's asking is actually a fair price. And if he is a practicioner of magic, do they really want to insult him by calling him a huckster?

You make an excellent point.  I suppose at it would only be logical, as sorcery wasn't always so sophisticated.  Those on the non-professional end of the spectrum would have a very crude, intuitive grasp of magic, as was so with the first practitioners before divine mathematics were derived from natural philosophy.

To give you an idea of the skill range of legitimate Metaphysicians:
* The professional can evoke high winds or a lightning stroke during bad weather.  The master can conjure the storm itself, many miles wide, and precisely conduct its processes like a symphony.
* The professional can move small objects from afar.  The master can lift Whitehall Palace.
* The professional can create illusions from devices that affect light.  The master can make those illusions material.
* The professional can imbed suggestions in your mind.  The master can make your thoughts nag at you into insanity.
* The professional can commune with spirits, partially bond with them, or tap into their domain for power.  The master can take that spirit and its domain by force, crafting objects of awesome power out of its trapped essence: a sword that cuts through steel, a near-impenetrable suit of armor, or a vibrating staff that destroys the composure of an army by producing the shrillest noise imaginable.
* To put it in simple terms, the professional can utilize about ten percent of the time and resources he puts into his spell craft.  Through a large breadth of knowledge, experimentation, and remarkable creativity, the master is able to reap nearly one-hundred percent efficiency; every gesture he executes with supreme ease and unadulterated beauty.

With this in mind, the cunning folk would possess a range of abilities exponentially less significant than those listed above for the professional.

That definitely makes sense to me, but one thing to keep in mind is that the magic of the cunning folk isn't just a lesser version of that practiced by more formally trained occultists. Certainly cunning folk are going to be less effective at a good portion of the things that metaphysicians are capable of, but that's the result of a different focus. Sorcerers in your setting seem to be based not only on famous sorcerers from plays, but also from historical accounts of the abilities attributed to Ceremonial Magicians. Historically speaking, the practice of ceremonial magic was seen as a spiritual art by a large number of occultists-while it's true that some did attempt to profit from their abilities or use them for personal gain the overall goal of ceremonial magic (and related pursuits, such as alchemy) has been greater knowledge, enlightenment, and communion with and emulation of, the divine (as many magicians in medieval times considered themselves Christians).

In contrast, the magic of the Cunning Folk was very much a practical response to basic concerns that the common folk had-things like repelling Witchcraft, finding lost objects, ensuring fertility and safe childbirth, ferreting out witches, curing illnesses, securing love, hexing, and foretelling the immediate future. Cunning folk commonly charged for their services, with only a few seeing their art as an Art at all, let alone as a means of reaching any sort of grand enlightenment. So I guess what I'm saying is that that Folk Magic tended to deal with basic concerns while the magic of ceremonial magicians was grander in scope (even if it was focused on the same base aims). A cunning man or wise woman probably wouldn't be able to conjure up a spirit, but few would see any reason to. Here are some ideas as to things that I think might be within a folk-magician's power, and that they might be able to pull off with comparable power to what a more formally trained spell caster could do:

*Hexing one's foes, whether with bad luck, infertility, illness, or injury.

*Finding those who are responsible for observed spells (especially negative magic). This was known as "witch finding" and comprised a good deal of some cunning-folk's practice.

*Foretelling the immediate future, including the weather.

*Finding lost, stolen or hidden objects and people.

*Determining what is wrong with a person or animal (such as illness, hex, injury etc.)

*Provoking love or hatred in another.

*Removing hexes and spells, sometimes by transferring them to a third party (sometimes the original caster, sometimes an animal or plant, sometimes an innocent individual)

*Curing some illnesses.

Few had any truck with spirits (although many cultivated reputations as having familiars and what not), or had any business levitating objects, creating illusions, transforming men into beasts etc. Their magic was very much practical and very much subtle.

To be clear, the setting is distinctly Renaissance and doesn't overlap much with medieval themes.  To be sure of this, the timespan of the setting is based on the Tudor dynasty, with the time of Henry VII's death signaling the end of the medieval period.

I chose the Renaissance for its color - an explosion of new ideas, art, and philosophy - as opposed to the drab tones I associate with the centuries prior.  Indeed, medieval metaphysicians, predominantly Christian, were known to have crude, sober and unscientific sorceries.  In contrast, the metaphysicians of the Renaissance, who are the forerunners of new ideas, art, and philosophy, are distinctly non-Catholic; even the ones who are devout are anti-establishmentarian (non-Church).

This non-Church / non-Catholic attitude stems from the nature of the divine mathematics itself.  In medieval times, the casting of spells was highly ritualized.  This made for weak, unreliable sorcery.  Over time, as metaphysicians learned that creativity made sorcery more potent and the study of natural philosophy made it more reliable, they started to question and even challenge the teachings of the Church en masse.  Reciting prayers had no power.  Ceremony had no power.  Via perpetuation of ignorance amongst non-clergy and responding with cruelty towards those that challenge their authority, sorcerers began to realize that the Church's actual power lie in the ability to control men's minds and their money.  Naturally, Martin Luther would have been amongst those disaffected metaphysicians. 

Ah, well that explains a lot, certainly. That actually might mean that sorcerers and folk-magicians might have more in common with each other than they'd like to admit, at least as far as their approach to magic goes. Both would look towards creativity and improvisation as paramount to successful magic, as indeed folk magicians were amongst the primary inspirations for the modern theory of Chaos Magic (basically taking any occult theory that's not nailed down and turning it into a working paradigm).

Forgive me my misinterpretation. That being said, what do you think of some of my ideas for the capabilities of other sorts of magicians?

Usually not a fan of crunchy games but this one has, for some reason, captured my heart.

If you sold this I would probably buy it.

I'm curious as to the nature of these tools you plan to give the GM to help him do his job. Are you planning something along the lines of Town Creation from DitV?

The GM toolset is inspired by the Dungeon Master's Guide.  As of right now I only have the combat details fleshed out.  In combat, the GM will be informed on what strategies different character types utilize. 

Let's say you have a group of Men-at-Arms.  Here’s what the manual would explain about their behavior in combat.
* If the opposition is numerically similar, Men-at-Arms will fight man-to-man, but they won't charge unless if they have polearms and the opposition doesn't.  When they reduce the opposition's numbers or if the opposition is numerically inferior to start, the Men-at-Arms will start to envelop and flank them. 

* If they have ranged weapons, Men-at-Arms will hold off on closing in and keep firing until the opposition gets near melee range, in which case they'll switch to melee weapons. 

* If they are losing the fight, Men-at-Arms will not rout until they are at a safe enough distance to do so (that is, they are not in danger of getting picked off by ranged combatants or more mobile units).  At first, they will attempt to incrementally withdraw to a superior or safe position, and then rout if staying to fight is not a feasible option.

* If they are outnumbered, Men-at-Arms, who are confident in their close-combat abilities, will gather tightly in a circle (big reason why I wanted a hex grid instead of a square), unless if the opponents are using ranged weapons, in which case they'll spread out, take cover, and fire before withdrawing (if they have ranged weapons of their own).  If withdrawing is not a feasible option, they’ll remain fighting while cautiously jockeying for better position and will make a melee charge against ranged combatants once they are close enough. 

* Dismounted Men-at-Arms using polearm weapons will pair up with another ally in order to compensate for the weapon's weakness in single combat. 

* If the Men-at-Arms are on horses, they will charge into masses of foot-combatants and then engage in mounted melee combat against the scattered opponents.  If the mass is equipped with polearms, the Men-at-Arms may dismount to engage in melee combat or open their opposition’s ranks with ranged attacks and then engage in mounted melee.  In horse-to-horse combat, Men-at-Arms will charge if they have polearms.  After initial contact and all the combatants are mixed up, they will engage in mounted melee combat and switch to their auxiliary weapons if their pole arms are broken or if the combatants are engaged in tight quarters.  If Men-at-Arms are dismounted and their opposition is mounted, they will tightly form up and brace themselves with pole arms while ranged combatants (if any) try to pick off the opposition.  If the Men-at-Arms don’t have enough polearms to protect themselves from a charge, they’ll spread out and engage the mounted combatants in a melee, actively trying to dismount them if they have polearms for latching on.  If they manage to dismount their opponents, they will try to commandeer the horse if feasible.  Men-at-Arms with high-lethality weapons (e.g. two-handed sword) will often attempt to cleave into the more exposed horse rather than the mounted combatant.

Hello Ar Kayon,

  I hope you don't mind me dropping in on your creative process.  It is pure chance that lands me here.  Your writing is so grounded and your ideas so interesting that I read this forum page from start to end.  Much of it is a mystery to me for I know nothing about role playing theory and game design.  I haven't played a role playing game with the exception of one evening in nearly twenty years.  When I played I was a Role Master fiend, and damaged my left hemisphere on modifier calculations and endless percentages. 

  So the fact that I've registered at this website to ask a few questions is rather weird to say the least.

  How realistic do you want the combat?  I understand what you are attempting to achieve in the lethality department, and the formalized attack types that take the minutia of combat in to account.  That aside,  I might be able to provide a few things to consider when it comes to realism that is generally overlooked. I use to be a fencer and rather good at it.  I also use to be involved in sports karate.  Then I was involved in a private club that did some ridiculously dangerous types of medieval/Renaissance reenactments.  Finally, I have plenty of stories through friends that gives me an understanding of combat that Role Master, for all its rules lacked.  I am not sure how you would go about applying it, but then I am not a game designer.

  I recall once playing a role playing game in which my character was hell bent, pure and simple.  I had him do completely reckless things, as his personality was designed around living at a wilder faster temporal rate, so he was a bright flame burning fast.  He ought to have died, but somehow he just kept defying the odds.  The tension built to such a level that everyone involved in the game session was on pin and needles to see if the next roll was the last.  That was the peek of my role playing experience and a good place to stop. 

  This might be of little to no interest to you, but I would like to continue with Johnthedm7000 discussion on "hedge magic" and your take of the rationality of the time period. 

  My knowledge on this subject is rather deep, but scatter shot, at this point in my life. 

  Try to consider "hedge magic" as intuitive right minded skills that were common place, if not exactly common to everyone.  Take the practice of spirit conjuring, a rare few might be an advanced practitioner of demonic summonings, such as Nostrodamus, or a user of a simple "yes" 'no" pendant.  I would suggest that the majority of teen-agers that have played with a Quija board have had some experience that is puzzling to them.  This doesn't require any advanced learning or training, but real anomalies might transpire.  Now, go back to a time in which people practiced simple "magic" before it was considered magic.  It wasn't something that invoked teen-age curiosity, but was just another aspect of life.  (I am deliberately trying to avoid an inundation of historical/current/personal discussion as it would never cease, and would serve little purpose but to induce an incredulous response.) 

  Take something like possession.  If it does exist what might that provide to a PC, say if they were born with a demon of rage? 

  Another thing about simple magic is that the practitioner may have limited control over when it happens, or it happens within rather clear parameters.  Take something like reiki healing.  Lets say this was not uncommon for a mid-wife to possess.  Now, say a certain mid-wife has gained a reputation as a healer.  Others expect her to be able to heal at a moments call minor injuries, but she can only heal 10% of the time, so the rest of the time she offsets it with herbs and deliberate trickery. 

  Maybe, a young thief (think the Gray Mouser - Fritiz Leiber) was adopted by a naturalistic meta-physician, and the only things he learned of value was that magic exists (quantum type) and it requires an amplifying of ones will via ceremony setting (mental ambiance to enhance suggestion) and meditation.  He never learns any of this, and instead is fascinated with one specific spell - a hexing spell of vengeance.  He understands how to cast it but he doesn't have the will, except when that fateful day dawns and he finds his lover murdered, then his will unleashes a hurricane of energy to set the hex in motion. 

  Lastly, I would like to pass along a strange bit of historical wyrd that I cam across sometime ago.  The reason I bring this up is to blow open the door to Renaissance and the dark/wyrd in a way that might be strangely compatible.  The classic shape of the grim reaper is a product of the Black Plague.  The origin of this symbol is based off of historical accounts of black robed figures that would appear in a town, often holding odd tools, and waving an item that vented fumes.  After their visit in a day or so the Black Plague would break out.  It gets stranger but I'll stop it at this.  If this is true, or a myth what is the source and reason? 


  One last lastly (of three parts), I really like the idea of a PC being a family line.  That has awesome potential.  Are there any role playing game that have a familial structure in which, the individual is less important then the group/community/family?  Think of Paul from the second Dune book, or the monastery in the Canticle of Leibowitz. 

  Having a ruleset that has scripted character actions/motivations is really neat. 

  APOTHECARY - Poison in our age is nearly forgotten, outside of a child drinking a cleaning solution, but go back a hundred years, and poison was as omnipresent as handguns are today.  A roleplaying game that realistically could incorporate the ever day threat of being poisoned, may add a lovely dose of paranoia.

  Thank you. 

How realistic do you want the combat? I understand what you are attempting to achieve in the lethality department, and the formalized attack types that take the minutia of combat in to account.

I use to be a fencer and rather good at it. I also use to be involved in sports karate. Then I was involved in a private club that did some ridiculously dangerous types of medieval/Renaissance reenactments. Finally, I have plenty of stories through friends that gives me an understanding of combat that Role Master, for all its rules lacked. I am not sure how you would go about applying it, but then I am not a game designer.

I haven’t forgotten about the discussion on magic.

Take something like possession.  If it does exist what might that provide to a PC, say if they were born with a demon of rage?

I've just realized that I completely missed the meat of the previous question.

When possession occurs, the sorcerer has access to the demon's domain in order to power his spells.  With the sorcerer's technical mastery and the demon's raw creative energy, the symbiote becomes greater than the sum of its parts.  However, every time a domain is tapped into, it loses energy and both it and the demon twist a little bit more.  This is the reason why spirits have become demons: power-hungry sorcerers take more creative energy from a domain than they put it.  As a result, demons bind with sorcerers that can be easily influenced, in the hopes that A) the demon may balance the deficit via the metaphysician's own abilities (a man's mind has a quickly-replenishing well of creativity), and that B) the demon has assistance in order to assimilate other domains.

Of course, no intelligent demon will grant full access of its domain to a sorcerer once bound.  Trust needs to be established, ergo sorcerers balance the deficit via their own metaphysical practice (or employ mercenaries that don't rely on sorcery to get things done, i.e. "Black Knights" who get paid with gold rather than power) in order to expand their domain credit.

I want to mention that 16th century mesoamerica will be part of the game's setting, despite the fact that Nahua and related peoples will not be playable characters - their skill sets generally cannot match the caliber of Renaissance European learning.  However, there will be a lot of opportunity for adventure here:
* Engaging in political relations with the natives.  Crazy ass battles both against and allied with them.
* Fighting off privateers during the travel to and from mesoamerica.
* Exotic sorcerous artifacts.  For example, the Mexica Sunstone will grant one the prowess of sacrificed warriors.
* Bizarre metaphysics and spirits (Quetzalcoatl, of course, will be a dominant and powerful presence).

Hello,

I greatly look forward to your master piece.  It just seems so lovely.  Riddle of Steel is one of my favorite role playing games, and one can use any degree of of the rules, but mass combat isn't smooth. 

One thing that I really like about Riddle of Steel are the stances one assumes prior to combat or during pauses.  You indicate stances, so I look forward to seeing how they will work into your system.

A few questions.  How do you plan to use terrain?  Can it be manipulated by creative characters, to press, flip, swing, distract and such?

I understand that you are attracted to the time period you are setting your game in part for the elaborate combat that it offers.  Yet, how about those times, when one just want to throw a dagger into the throat of a charging opponent, that you then kick in the groin, as you roll from the aim of a crossbow.  Safely concealed you flip a table and push it forward.  Nearing the crossbow you dash low from tables' concealment, and toss your cloak.  A quick thrust to the throat and down... he should have gone if the coward hadn't fully evaded.  Well, maybe this mug of beer hurled at his potted helm, might take the fight out of him. 

As always, an excellent read. I think it may be beneficial for you to throw up an example of what a character sheet would look like for one or two of the classes. I sometimes loose track of where numbers are coming from in your combat examples. I'm also curious to see how grappling will be played out in depth. I understand most instances of grappling in a Renaissance setting are coupled with some form of weaponry, but I'm sure there are some instances where a man simply must choke his enemy to death.
Also, ranged combat? Is it as simple as roll-to-hit then roll armour check? Will there be a difference in what a character can do to survive a volley of arrows as opposed to a direct shot from within 20 paces?

Horomancer,

I'm going to answer your inquiry first as lemming's response is taking me a long time to write.
1.  The character sheet won't look much different from class to class.  This is because the bulk of a character is his skills; a profession's niche protection is derived from those skills rather than special powers or other sorts of traits or quirks.  In general, however, the character sheet will consist of: skill categories and groups (only developed skill types will be plugged in), equipped armor and weapons (with their attributes plugged in), and resources.

2.  Grappling consists of: 1) restraining and 2) taking down.  All other manifestations, like choking or damaging body parts, are derived from these two standard attacks.  For example, to pin a combatant, they must first be against or very close to a surface (like the ground, which may require a successful takedown), and then you must score a critical success with your restraint.  There are also your skilled maneuvers that allow you to apply the attributes of your weapon (i.e. your body: high speed and high maneuverability).  So, for instance, you could use your takedown as a counterattack and apply the speed bonus to it, which could model a shoot for the leg after an opponent swings his weapon wildly above your head.  As these attacks are intentionally defined in a broad manner, it could also model you interrupting a downward sword blow by grabbing his arm and throwing him to the ground - if you're particularly skilled a critical success with a takedown will cause said weapon to end up in your hands.  One more thing: just like against weaponry, there is also an armor check made against a successful grappling attack.  In this case, however, armor doesn’t really influence your dice.  Instead, conditioning skill types, especially strength, positively affects your success rate to resist a restraint or takedown.

3.  Ranged combat consists of rolling unopposed, with variables affecting your base dice.  This includes cover, distance, and movement (e.g. you see a bowman in combat, and you run your ass off during the movement phase, declaring that you are still in a state of movement at the end of it, which is feasible because phases would actually overlap if they were played out in real time).  And yes, then the armor check comes into play.  It is possible to actively defend against an individual ranged attack, but even defense in melee combat does not consist of an opposed roll; it only negatively influences your opponent’s base dice.  It is also possible to cut your opponent down before he can even ready his weapon, which is ridiculously simple to model with combat phases: if an opponent starts to prepare his weapon in a round (like knocking a bow), it probably won’t be ready to fire until after the follow-up phase, which means if your character, with his well-developed athletic skills, can cover twenty paces during the movement phase, the bowman is fucked.

So if I declare I want to break a mans arm as a counter to his attack, I may need a double injury success. Less than that and I only disarm him and possible set him up for a break on my next action? Or would I have to perform one action to 'pin' him and gain control of his body, then deal damage on my next action?

Un-related topic, have you posted any examples of non-combat related rolls? Also, what is you stance on character control in your system? Are the players always in total control of there characters, or will you have some way to say 'Your bookish nobeling stands transfixed at the violence around him, his veteran man o' arms unlimbers his tools and gets to work'?

I always found this point a sticky one, if the players are in total control, or 'suggesting' what their characters should do next.

Lemming,

1. I don't intend to create an over-the-top style of gameplay like the scenario you've described above only are there many games that do it, but they do it better than me - oftentimes with fluid "stunting" mechanics.  Sure, the rules actually do support every action in the scenario (mechanics for aimed attacks and utilizing improvised weapons are extremely simple), but the rules also support chaos, which means you're more likely to trip up somewhere or ineffectively waste combat time as that sequence of events requires a lot of lucky rolls.

2. Stances are part of the narrative.  The reason why I demonstrated various positions ("he takes a defensive stance") is for tactical integrity, i.e. combatants shouldn't be blind to overt telegraphing, but they should only be able to conjecture at best what it is specifically another intends to do (as certain maneuvers were designed to overcome other maneuvers).  Thus, the organization of the narrative during combat is mechanically driven (although the actual rules are still underdeveloped). 

To illustrate, if the gm says that my opponent is inching towards me menacingly, that will be enough to make an informed decision on how to proceed:
* I can be fairly certain that he intends to attack and is not foolhardy about it (he hasn’t charged).
* If I am not completely confident in my melee skill (say < 4), I should assume that a standard attack as a response (to go toe-to-toe) will be to my disadvantage - because I cannot be sure that my skill roll surpasses my opponent’s - and my dice rank will be extremely poor if I attempt a covered attack.  Therefore, offense is not a wise opening strategy.
* Thus, my feasible options are defensive, and will be narrowed down further by what weapons my opponents and I have. 
* A shield and/or a good sword will highly favor the open guard maneuver (if my skill type is high enough to actually be able to use it), as the maneuverability bonus granted by the implements will compensate for a low skill.  A pure defense can also work to my advantage with the maneuverability bonus, as it will increase the chances of my opponent rolling a critical failure, potentially giving me the opportunity to go on the offensive.  At this point, my range of options should be 50% open guard / 50% defend, and 100% defend if I do not have the open guard maneuver.  If I have a shield and am feeling particularly adventurous, I could also attempt to break distance - as the shield increases your chances to do so - and then start attacking with the shield at close range (40 open guard / 40 defense / 30 break distance).
* However, if I have a polearm and the opponent is wielding a shorter weapon, offense (the standard attack) becomes a suitable option once more, and my range of options should be roughly 50% standard attack / 50% counterattack.  These maneuvers are advantageous because 1) they are direct and 2) they are safe as my opponent won’t be able to attack unless he manages to break distance.
* If I have a short weapon like a dagger or am unarmed, then my best option is to counterattack, with pure defense being a close second (60/40).  If my opponent has a longer weapon than me, which is likely, then counterattack has several advantages: 1) If successful, then I don’t have to make a success roll to break distance.  2) My counterattack will have a speed advantage.  3) Once I break distance, my counterattack will also have a close-range advantage against the longer weapon.

I know I’m going off on a tangent here, but the above example was written to demonstrate the tactical complexity attainable with a simple design concept.

3.  I haven’t fully developed the environment’s capacity to influence combat yet, but I have a solid understanding of how to go about designing these factors.  Let’s take improvised weapons, for instance.  Say you have an object that is very similar in geometry to a weapon skill of yours - you can use it with said weapon skill for the purposes of available maneuvers, the only difference being the actual attributes of the weapon.  If the object is irregular, like a beer mug, then you would use the object as if it were a weapon with 0 skill (certain penalties apply to untrained weapons), but you would still fight with the skill roll you use for all melee weapons.  This is a big reason why I’ve decided to separate application experience (dictates your skill roll) from technical experience (dictates available maneuvers for specific weapon types).  In such situations, a GM will likely exercise judgment; he may decide that a beer mug can be used per your pugilism skill, for instance. 
For movement, the applied athletics skill group and its technical skill types will determine your range of available action in relation to your environment.  If I wanted to avoid a dragon’s tail whip while running past it, I would apply what is called a “movement defense” variable to the dragon’s attack dice, which is determined by your athletics skill roll.  Then, if I wanted to run up the dragon’s back and climb up its neck so I can stab its head, I would utilize a maneuver available by my acrobatics skill type, if possible (for maximum efficiency or an automatic success), or just make an athletics skill roll against the terrain type.  The GM can compare this irregular surface against surface types listed in the manual to determine the difficulty of the action.

Correction:

"I don't intend to create an over-the-top style of gameplay like the scenario you've described above.  Not only are there many games that do it, but they do it better than me - oftentimes with fluid "stunting" mechanics."

horomancer wrote:
So if I declare I want to break a mans arm as a counter to his attack, I may need a double injury success. Less than that and I only disarm him and possible set him up for a break on my next action? Or would I have to perform one action to 'pin' him and gain control of his body, then deal damage on my next action?

Un-related topic, have you posted any examples of non-combat related rolls?

Also, what is you stance on character control in your system? Are the players always in total control of there characters, or will you have some way to say 'Your bookish nobeling stands transfixed at the violence around him, his veteran man o' arms unlimbers his tools and gets to work'?

I should further elaborate on my first statement.  To cause damage by grappling (e.g. to choke, break, dislocate, etc.), you must first restrain your opponent.  Again, all other manifestations of grappling springboard off of the standard attacks: to takedown and to restrain.  If you wanted to dislocate an arm outright, that's technically a pugilism standard attack: to strike, aimed at the joint (small area; +1 DR penalty for small weapons).  However, since you're not using a skilled maneuver in this instance, it doesn't really matter that it's a pugilistic attack (you're using the skill roll for the entire hand-to-hand group anyway) other than to consider the manner in which damage is handled.

Why is the difference between pugilism damage and grappling damage important?  Because it will be more effective to attempt to cause grappling damage when in a tight grappling exchange than to cause it via strikes.  So far, the initial idea is for grappling damage to have 1d4-1 attack dice against a pinned opponent, 1d4 for a fully restrained opponent, and 1d6 against a partially restrained opponent (the fight scene with Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride comes to mind).  If successful, then the margin of success is compared against a grappling armor check (recall that conditioning skills are used instead of worn armor against grappling).

Ok, so in a combat I can either choose to 'take down' may enemy which can lead to the highly advantageous pinned state, or 'restrain' them which will still allow me to perform grappling actions, but at slightly less chance of success. I do either of these by making a standard attack roll, declaring my intended results before hand. I assume that their are modifiers based on which action I choose to do and my skill level in what ever skill applies for this instance

Which brings me too skills in general. You have three levels (or three distinct parts to each skill?) which cover what the skills applies to, how well you perform it mechanically, and what freedoms you can take with the skill, correct? Is combat a skill like any other, just more heavily modified by weapons and equipment, or is it structured differently from non-combat skills?

Since you've been focused on hammering out combat, I think my perception of what 'maneuvers' are and how they function might be a bit off. Could you possible give some examples of maneuvers that are not combat related? Also are all the actions you've stated so far about combat (attacking, defending, countering, breaking guard, closing distance,...i thnk that's all..) maneuvers which only a highly trained combat character would have access to all of, or are they just action types any character can perform, though they would have a low chances of success?

Ok, so in a combat I can either choose to 'take down' may enemy which can lead to the highly advantageous pinned state, or 'restrain' them which will still allow me to perform grappling actions, but at slightly less chance of success. I do either of these by making a standard attack roll, declaring my intended results before hand. I assume that their are modifiers based on which action I choose to do and my skill level in what ever skill applies for this instance

Which brings me too skills in general. You have three levels (or three distinct parts to each skill?) which cover what the skills applies to, how well you perform it mechanically, and what freedoms you can take with the skill, correct? Is combat a skill like any other, just more heavily modified by weapons and equipment, or is it structured differently from non-combat skills?

Since you've been focused on hammering out combat, I think my perception of what 'maneuvers' are and how they function might be a bit off. Could you possible give some examples of maneuvers that are not combat related?

Also are all the actions you've stated so far about combat (attacking, defending, countering, breaking guard, closing distance,...i thnk that's all..) maneuvers which only a highly trained combat character would have access to all of, or are they just action types any character can perform, though they would have a low chances of success?

Ok i think I understand your setup. Are the Skill Categories pre-set? What about the Skill Groups and Maneuvers (though I imagine this is much more setting dependent)?
I see the sense in avoiding 'feats' as it is one more thing to balance, but aren't Maneuvers in essence the same? Your combat ones appear to be preset in a hierarchy, but your example for athletics seems more free form and suggests players can choose 'x' amount based on a skill with no necessary hierarchy. Is this intentional or am I missing something?

Also you mention Categories, Groups, Types of skills at the start of your response, then talk about Groups, Types, and Maneuvers later on. I wanted to make certain this was intentional and not a typo to avoid possible confusion.

1. Developing a skill type (technical aptitude) will grant maneuvers.  In comparison, when a group (application proficiency) is developed, your overall rate of success improves. 
The term “maneuver” is not used interchangeably with “skill type”, nor is it independent of a skill type, as one is manifested from the other.  So no, there wasn’t a typo because the context of the discussion was different in each instance.

2. Skill tiers, including the categories, are all setting-specific.  Skills change over time - their body of knowledge tends to increase, and then specializations eventually splinter off - so they're bound to change in classification should there be a different setting.  For example, if I were to create a modern setting, then “Medicine” would be its own category rather than have its constituent parts contained within the “Biology” group of the “Natural Philosophy” category.  (I’ll post some of the skill trees on this thread later on.)

3. Fundamentally, maneuvers and feats are the same type of structure - a module for quantitatively increasing a player's range of interactivity, independent of GM judgment, within the game world - much like how skills and attributes are intrinsically the same.  Maneuvers/abilities diverge in several ways, however: there are less of them (therefore easier to maintain balance) and they are skill-specific rather than profession-specific.  Also, they have been duplicated for efficiency - for example, any skill type in melee weapons grants the same exact maneuvers at the same levels of development. 

4. Sorry for the confusion about athletics.  “Athletics” is a skill category.  “Applied Athletics” – the skill I was referring to – is a skill group within.  The other skill group in the category is “Conditioning”.  Within “applied athletics” would be a skill type like jumping. 
Furthermore, the group only seems more fluid than the combat skills because I haven’t fully developed the tree yet.  However, because I expect “applied athletics” to be a skill used during combat time, it will be strictly defined.
Finally, to address a possible future question, I initially considered “combat” to be a part of that tree.  However, I’ve decided that because its body of knowledge was so large, it would be better to classify “combat” as its own category.

Thank you, that clarified things greatly. I look forward to the skill trees for your current setting as, well as character examples.
Will all tiers of a skill have a numerical value that is applied in game?