I had to get a little used to the way you guys work here on this forum, but now I feel inspired to post what I have so far.

http://www.mediafire.com/?27b8b7b35ug8155

This is not a finished product yet, nor can it be used as is, but it shows my design philosophies. The thing that I find most difficult right now, and wich is holding me back, is the character sheet. I have immense difficulty with laying it out in a clear manner which makes it easy to check and makes sense. As such, the explanation of the stats is probably going to change a little, but not too much.

As you can read from this document, Chronicles is designed to be easy to play. I only use D6 dice, and I decided to couple the "to hit" phase in combat with the basic action table, so basically, if something is really easy it's a 2D6 roll of 4, easy is 5, normal is 7, difficult is 8 and very difficult 10. This way, there aren't many values you need to remember. I am most probably going for the same thing with the shooting to hit phase and the magic phase as well.

I changed my ideas about skills. Though this document says they can be found in a document called the "Old School Curriculum", I decided to go for a skill tree instead, so you can find what skills your Adventurer can learn on the Adventurer Sheet, and you have to make choices about what path to go. But I am not sure if that is the way I want to do it just yet. Am I going for a pure skill tree? Or am I going to give people the choice of mixing "branches" instead? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Let me know what you think. I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

Couldn't get my mind off of it, and now I have this idea that I want to run by you guys.

I still want to make skill sets unique to Adventurers, but the whole skill tree idea just didn't feel right enough.

I came up with this idea. Adventurers each have a list of skills. These skills are divided into "levels" (for lack of a better term, hate the term though).
There are Level 0 Skills. You need the amount of Skills correspondent to the level to be able to buy them. So as soon as you buy one of those, you are entitled to Level 1 Skills. If you have a total of 2 Skills, you are entitled to Level 2 Skills, etcetera. You don't necessarily need a Level 2 Skill to be able to buy a Level 3 Skill, as long as you have a total of 3 Skills when you do.

The higher level skills are more powerful, but cost more Skill Points to use, so you can also choose to focus on the lower levels instead.

How does this sound to you guys?

Daniel36 wrote:
Couldn't get my mind off of it, and now I have this idea that I want to run by you guys.

I still want to make skill sets unique to Adventurers, but the whole skill tree idea just didn't feel right enough.

...

How does this sound to you guys?

Hey Josh, thanks for the question.

The skills (and spells, which in this sense are skills as well) are there to give the different Adventurers a bit of colour. They are special attacks, so to speak. So it is indeed a) to differentiate characters and give them specific roles within the party.

I haven't yet thought of enough skills to give them, other than the spells for the Flame Wizard, one of the first four characters that I am going to release.

You see, characters are all going to be pre-generated. Leveling up is also pre-generated. Weapon levels are pre-generated, and the skills and spells that players get to choose from are also pre-generated. However, what isn't pre-generated is the skills that players are going to choose. I want to set a max of skills choosable from the list, so they have to think about which path they are going to take.

Am I going to give my Flame Wizard a minor healing spell so he can pitch in when needed? Or am I going to give him a far more powerful flame blast spell to give him even more oomph? Very broadly speaking, you have two types of skills. The offensive and defensive ones, and it is up to the player what kind of warrior he wants to create from these.

So, it's not really added complexity as much as it is the only way to create different types of warriors within the choices. So it adds a bit of flavour. Most of these skills are going to be damage dealing or damage reduction, though I am more than open to any other suggestions.

Come to think of it, here are the four starter Adventurers. I would love for everyone to come up with suggestions for fun attacks and skills to give them.

Human Mercenary
– Sword and shield

Dwarf Adventurer
– Dwarf Axe

Elf Hunter
– Bow and Hunter Knife

Human Flame Wizard
– Staff

Aside from Shatter Armour for the Dwarf Adventurer, which destroys the opponent's DEF roll (Armour Save), and the Mercenary's Charging Smash, which does double damage when activated while charging the opponent, and the Fireball attack, Fire Wall defense and minor Healing Hand spell for the Flame Wizard, I haven't really been able to come up with cool skills. Another I just came up with is Piercing Shot for the Hunter, which I suppose will half the enemy's DEF roll...

So basically I am looking for skills such as these to outfit the Adventurers with. Perhaps I can also add things like “Strength” which just gives you an added D6 damage bonus...

But I am open to cool suggestions. Just give a general description of what it does and I will translate it to things that work mechanically.

Thanks in advance.

Cool!

So skills in this sense are more along the lines of 4e powers or Apocalypse World special moves.  Please forgive my preconceived notions of what skills are.  You have challenged my assertions!!!

I think every good dwarf should have some type of "solid as a rick" type ability.  Perhaps a skill in which the dwarf doubles his armor and reduces his movement to a minimum?

Yes, I should've made the "skills" deal a bit clearer indeed. Yes, they are special moves, and this also entails spells, but they could also be, as I mentioned, something such as extra damage or an extra attack perhaps.

But yeah, solid as a brick is a good idea. Perhaps something like a "Defensive Stance" perhaps? "Dwarf Defence"?

"Solid as a rick"?

That's what I get for posting from my phone.  I meant rock, but brick works too.

I started playing a videogame today and the character creation system in it is so genius, that I decided to completely overthrow my pre-generated character idea and implement a system like the one found in Mount and Blade.

In essence, the game asks you questions of where you were born, how you spent your early life, your youth, and where you ended up before you start your journey, and the answers you give determine your starting stats and skills.

I used to hate the "rolling for stats" deal as I thought it was so empty. Now with this system, you are actually developing a character at the start instead of just rolling stats. More on this soon!

Josh wrote:
"Solid as a rick"?

He features heavily in the upcoming Metal Gear Solid 13 : Snake Shake.

Anyways, I am afraid Chronicles is going to become slightly more like D&D than I first envisioned.

When  I first set out to create this, I felt pre-generated characters were the way to go. You could still add personal flavour to them with Perks and Handicaps (like being better at jumping, worse at swimming, knowing how to disarm traps, being able to see and communicate with spirits etc.), but now with my "questionaire" system it is starting to become just a little bit more complicated. I am hoping that it will be easy enough to follow so that a new game can be quickly started without spending ages on character creation, but I am a little afraid that the outcome will be more difficult than I wanted in the beginning.

Also, "leveling up" is also going to be much more difficult to implement now. Before, stat increases were also pre-determined, but I am afraid that this won't be possible anymore.

Thoughts will be greatly appreciated!

Hmm, I think I just came up with a good solution.

These are the base stats:
MOV - Your movement. Set in stone.
FS - Fighting skill. Close combat. The higher the better
BS - Ballistic Skill. Shooting. The lower the better.
ATT - The amount of attacks. Upgrades with weapon.
HP - Your Hit Points.
SP - Your Skill Points, used for special attacks, spells and to add or deduct to a dice roll.

When "leveling up", you gain +2 HP and +1 SP and you may choose to add +1 to your FS or -1 to your BS or an additional +2 to HP or a +1 to SP.

Now, leveling up is a bit different to how it usually works (though not really). You can only level up if you are in a town that has facilities for you to train. This can be a barracks for fighty types or a library for studious types, it's up to the GM to determine if a town has the necessary accomodations to do so. You pay a set amount of cash to level up, which will probably become higher as you train more.

Does this system sound okay?

I have become very happy with my character creation solution, so for now I guess I don't need your thoughts on that (though they are still appreciated), but what I do want to discuss is the following.

Chronicles uses a dice roll for "basic actions", which are actions that basically everyone can do, albeit to a varying degree of success, whenever a situation arises where there is a definite chance of failure and when failure has consequence. I want to make this list as complete as possible. Right now these are the "basic actions";

Running and Jumping
Climbing
Pushing
Swimming
Hiding and Moving Silently
Eavesdropping and Listening
Applying Bandages
Using a Wand

Which am I missing right now? I am not too happy with "Pushing", I may need to change that name. Also note that these do not encompass "conversational"  actions, I have chosen to leave conversational roleplay to the players and GM, not to a dice roll.

Thanks!

The previous question still stands (and will as long as people give me good suggestions!) but I came across something that I also really want to discuss.

I came up with a really easy to use system for determining whether or not you "hit" with a close combat weapon.
Basically, every character and enemy has a Fighting Skill (FS) value, that shows how well they can fight. This value is actually three values, and can look like this:

(4) 8 (12)

The system works as follows;
If your FS is equal, you hit on a 7+
If your enemy's FS is lower, you hit on a 5+
If your enemy's FS is equal to or lower than your left value, you hit on a 4+
If your enemy's FS is higher, you hit on an 8+
If your enemy's FS is equal to or higher than your right value, you hit on a 10+

However, I need to decide how to establish the left and right value. I first chose to make the left value half of the middle value deducted (rounded up), and the right value half of the middle value added (rounded up).

This makes combat interesting, as the better you are, the easier you can hit weaklings and the more skill an enemy needs to possess to hit you easier.

But then I started wondering, what if your FS is changed during battle (by a spell or something), then you have to number crunch, which I personally suck at, so I thought, what if the left value is just the middle -4, and the right value is just the middle +4

This would be the difference:
1 2 3 / 1 2 6
2 3 5 / 1 3 7
2 4 6 / 1 4 8
3 5 8 / 1 5 9
3 6 9  / 2 6 10
4 7 11 / 3 7 11
4 8 12 / 4 8 12
5 9 14 / 5 9 13
5 10 15 / 6 10 14
6 11 17 / 7 11 15
6 12 18 / 8 12 16
7 13 20 / 9 13 17
7 14 21 / 10 14 18
8 15 23 / 11 15 19
8 16 24 / 12 16 20

I personally like the second best, because it involves less math. I hate math! But I can add or deduct 4. I can do that! The first one gives more differentiation, but if I use the second one I am probably going to start higher with the FS.

Let me know. Feedback is very much appreciated.

Should lockpicking and trap disarming be a Perk, or should it be a Basic Action that every Adventurer can pull off, but with different degrees of success?

Okay, so I am hoping people will reply to the following question. The previous ones I suppose I have dealt with already.

Anyways, in my quest for a more interesting character creation process, I felt I made things unnecessarily complicated once more and went back to re-simplify some of the steps. I want to ask the following question.

Aside from combat and special skills, each adventurer is able to use "basic actions"
These are as follows:
Running and Jumping
Climbing
Swimming
Hiding and Moving Silently
Eavesdropping and Listening
Lockpicking and Trap Disarming
Using a Wand

Rolls for these are a success on a 7+ on 2D6. You can improve them once to a 5+ and once more to a 4+, or degrade to an 8+ or 10+.

Question : Will I pre-generate these per race? So I decide which a Dwarf will suck at and which it will be good at, and for an Elf, etcetera?
Or will I leave this decision to the player? For each improvement you need to make another one worse.
I am leaning towards the second. The choice between a Dwarf or Elf (etcetera) will instead have different effects then.

Let me know what you guys think. Oh, and I decided to leave out “Pushing” and “Applying Bandage”, as I didn't really come up with a good use for those actions.

I am not going to pre-determine them... I AM however going to pre-determine stats once again... The questionnaire deal is pretty cool and a fun way of creating characters, but it doesn't work well enough for what I have in mind.

I will upload the file of what I wrote so far for character creation so others may use it if they so feel inclined. It's pretty neat and would be a waste not to use it, so maybe I can make someone else happy with it.

I suppose no questions for now...

I really need some help guys. I am not happy enough with the basic action table yet. These are the actions I have:
Running and Jumping
Climbing
Swimming
Hiding and Moving Silently
Eavesdropping and Listening
Lockpicking and Trap Disarming
Using a Wand

But I find this list too small. I still feel against including conversational actions, but perhaps you guys have different thoughts on that. If anything, please help me come up with more "basic" actions that normally any person would be able to do, to a varying degree of success.

Backing up a tiny bit, the whole scale of 4+, 5+, and 7+ on 2D6 almost seems like it could be simplified (or changed) to different die sizes. A common technique I've seen is to have the lowest skill a D4, then D6, D8, D10, D12, etc. So if they are really weak at something they only get a D4 or a D6, which could parallel to the idea of needing 10+ compared to 4+.

In terms of character generation I think more options and flexibility for the player is a good route. It helps differentiate their character from other Dwarves and Elves and so forth.

Also the list of actions seem like they are begging to be put into separate categories. Maybe a "Movement" category for the first four, since they are basically different modes of getting from point A to B. If you're going to allow some of the actions to be increased/decreased then they sort of need to match up to each other in terms of power, since some players might think "Why would I improve Lockpicking, which I use once per game, for the same as improving Running which I use a ton?".

Do you have a general overview in terms of the scale of the game? Is it one Adventurer per player, or do they have multiple, or what? When you say tabletop do you envision one-off standalone games or an ongoing campaign?

Fresh thoughts. Very good.

You say "Simplified" when talking about different die sizes. However, as I continued work on Chronicles, I wanted things to be simple in different areas. One of those is the availability and ease of use of dice. But perhaps it is foolish for me to assume that this game will be played or even appeal to "new" gamers, as it is a miniature game which is often played by people already familiar with many concepts, so perhaps wanting to stick to D6 only is stupid. I am interested to hear about what other people think.

I do like your idea. It was an idea a friend of mine also came up with, he played a game in which this system is used and it is nice, but... I need to think it over a little I suppose.  I kind of like the simplicity of one type of die. Again, I am interested in other people’s thoughts.

I have since changed things up a slight bit. For starters the 4+ 5+ 7+ 9+ 10+ deal is slightly upped to 5+ 6+ 8+ 10+ 11+ because it was just too easy to roll high enough. It may seem like a small change, but it had an impact.

I also changed back to pre-generated stats BUT retained the ability to modify any of these through the use of Perks and Handicaps, so players are still able to differentiate their Elf with any other Elf. The questionnaire deal was just too big and complicated.

bosky wrote:
Also the list of actions seem like they are begging to be put into separate categories. Maybe a "Movement" category for the first four, since they are basically different modes of getting from point A to B. If you're going to allow some of the actions to be increased/decreased then they sort of need to match up to each other in terms of power, since some players might think "Why would I improve Lockpicking, which I use once per game, for the same as improving Running which I use a ton?".

bosky wrote:
Do you have a general overview in terms of the scale of the game? Is it one Adventurer per player, or do they have multiple, or what? When you say tabletop do you envision one-off standalone games or an ongoing campaign?

Hmm I can understand wanting to appeal to new gamers, but I think anyone who would have miniatures and terrain and the interest in playing anything besides Monopoly probably have access to non-D6 dice. I guess playtesting is the best solution to see whether the scaling X+ is smoother than die types. I do think if you go with X+ you should at least make sure it rises consistently; in the list you posted it jumps from 6+ to 8+ and then 10+. Was there a reason for no 7+ or 9+?

The questionnaire was a fun idea and reminded me of some earlier CRPGs, but I agree that it could be seen as a bit long. It might be good for first time players but anyone after that will want a way to "power build" the statistics directly without having to hassle with the questions.

Ah okay I didn't realize the Actions were special cases, I thought they were used pretty commonly. Maybe rename Running to Sprinting then to give a better hint that it's a short term action? Maybe that's just my preconceived notions but to me Running is like a double move, so probably pretty common.

I think adding "React" is a slippery slope because then Adventurer's can perform actions when it's not their turn, but it doesn't seem like the game is built from the ground up to accommodate that (like how Infinity is, for example).

I read your other post where you introduced yourself and you mentioned Mordheim. I was just wondering if maybe the game should focus on either pure RPG or pure skirmish elements, so either have 1 Adventurer or have a party of Adventurers. You can still tie in the advancement and campaign feel, but I think the rules will end up more cohesive if you have a narrower idea of what size of game people will use the rules for. I speak a bit from experience here with my own project Dinosaur Cowboys as I started it as a "light RPG/skirmish" (I aimed for a 50/50 split), but then it ended up doing neither well. So I re-tooled it to 90/10 skirmish/RPG and am much happier with the result.

Having a "default" setting might be good, since it can add flavor and uniqueness that is harder to achieve with a generic ruleset just for fantasy. I think there are two camps to this though as a lot of people like systems that allow you to pit whatever against whatever without being tied to a setting, so take that with a grain of salt.

I'll be interested to see if you get a working copy posted as I think it'll help with feedback, since right now it's hard to visualize how some of the pieces tie together.

Yeah I shouldn't focus on "new" players, but I am still keeping the focus on simplicity (which is a different thing, really...)

The reason there I went for 5+ 6+ 8+ 10+ 11+ is that 8 in this sense is the middle (not 50% btw), and the first jump is two, the next jump adds another (either to easier or harder), really for sake of simplicity. Aside from that, this opens up the way for items that can boost another 1+.

I will need to make sure everyone knows that the basic actions are there for "cinematic" moments (for lack of a better term). You are right about running / sprinting. I will change the name. You are also right about the react action... I hadn't thought about that.

I am glad to hear about your experiences. The game is mostly going to be focused on the skirmish aspect, which is also apparent in the rulesets. The "RPG" aspect is basically those cinematic moments where the basic actions may come into play. I chose to omit conversational skillsets altogether, further walking away from the RPG aspect. I guess what I want is a skirmish game where people CAN use the battles to tell a story, but one that isn't focused on how the story goes from A to B, but rather how the story goes from battle to battle. A bit like how Final Fantasy Tactics worked, I suppose... Thanks for the heads-up though, I am sure it will affect the continuation of the project.

I deliberatly stay away from any setting. I personally hate it because it limits me when someone else wrote out everything for me. So I decided that this is left for the GM and the players. They are perfectly capable of coming up with stuff themselves...

I need to re-write the core book to accommodate the changes and I am nearly done with the first basic classes and careers, so I will post those as soon as possible. Again, thanks for the feedback.

That makes more sense, and I 100% agree that simplicity is critical for skirmish games. You don't exactly want to be bogged down with unnecessary details when dealing with a dozen figures on the table. I'm a big fan of streamlining and rules lightness in that regard, which is kind of funny because I used to like the most detailed and complex games I could find.

It's a bit hard to visualize how the X+ will be tracked, but I'm sure you have a good system figured out for keeping it clear on what needs to be rolled. Also another option (aside for scaling die types) would be a different die type in the first place compared to 2D6. I'm a fan of the D12 myself, but again that's project bias because I use it in my game :)

Definitely fun to link standalone games together into a story, as it really gives depth and meaning to each character and the conflicts they have. That was (and is) one of the biggest draws of Necromunda and Mordheim I think, let alone some of the more modern skirmish games.

Like I said I'm looking forward to a posted doc and to see how the project develops. But even if you have something rough I'd post it up as I think that helps feedback a lot and puts everyone more or less on the same page.

If you ask me, simplicity is best in any game, be they skirmish or RPG. But I suppose that too is a matter of taste.

I actually have the "Core Rules" document in my first post, but as you can imagine several things are outdated by now. But you can see how X+ will be tracked from there. It is actually quite easy. Which race you choose defines what an adventurer needs to roll to succeed. A Dwarf isn't very good at jumping, so he might need an 11+. an Elf isn't very good at lockpicking, but jumping isn't too hard for them. Humans just have 8+ (will change that back to 7 if I go for D12) for everything, but as a free Perk they may level up one... Aye, I couldn't get myself to steer away from D&D completely there... But anyways, it's quite negeralized. With the Perk and Handicap system, you can change these, so you could in theory build a Dwarf that is an excellent jumper, a "rogue" Elf, etcetera.

Perhaps I should indeed think about this game as a sort of Mordheim/Necro (and Warhammer Quest, my original inspiration) when dealing with the roleplaying bit. It really is up to the GM and players how they go about... If you ask me, roleplaying doesn't, in essence, need rules, so you can throw it in if you want. Thanks for the thoughts. My first draft was centered around an "Adventurer's Guild" idea, handing out missions (think Warhammer Quest). Perhaps I should return to that idea...

Perhaps you are right... Maybe I should just use D12 for the to hit phases and the actions. I am starting to like the notion more and more... The chance of rolling a 7 is the same as rolling a 2, which is not the case with 2D6. I learned that lesson when I playtested. My mates almost never failed a roll... But I won't go any further than D6 and D12... None of the other dice...

Thanks a lot for the thoughts and interest. Helps me to continue!!

Yeah it certainly makes learning and playing a lot faster. I think the only genre I still like complex is games involving spaceships...they just seem to flow better if you really feel like a technical engineer playing the game, haha.

I had just skimmed the doc originally but I took a second look. I can see some of the Warhammer Quest inspiration in the Event Phase, since that's kind of similar to it's predecessor Advanced Heroquest. And yeah trying to make rules for roleplaying can be tough, although providing the framework (in the sense of resolving skill checks or the like) can help when the GM/players need it. Personally I think a lot of the flavor just develops from the personalities and events involved, and can turn a boring 1vs1 fight into an epic conflict with lots of history behind it.

I really like the idea of Skill Points, they kind of remind me of "Heroic Effort" or "Fate Points" seen in other games. Having to balance saving SP and using it at key moments is always fun and tense and helps add a cinematic feel so that Adventurers don't awkwardly fail at basic tasks because they rolled poorly.

I think the Fighting Skill has changed a bit so I'm not sure if it still uses the chart? The idea of 3 values is kind of interesting though and reminds me of the Weapon Skill vs Weapon Skill chart from GW games.

Anyways I'll be interested to see if you keep with D6s or go with D12s and how you continue to evolve the game.

Yeah... The Event Phase... I actually just deleted that segment from the core book an hour ago...
I am actually thinking of returning to creating loose documents for "missions" or "quests" which might have Event Phases, but since it's going to depend on the scenario, I decided to leave it out of the core rules.

I am glad you like the Skill Points idea. I liked it a lot as well.

The idea behind the three values is actually really simple. It is now four lower and four higher, left and right from the middle value, and basically, if your value is the same, you roll an 8+ (may change if I go to D12), is your FS lower, a 10+, if the Enemy's FS matches or exceeds the right value, an 11+, and the other way around. It is indeed a simplified GW Weapon Skill idea, but I think it works really well.

I am leaning towards the D12 more and more. I am afraid though that the "evolution" might actually mean I am going back to my original idea of pre-generated race/class combos, with the choices of Perks and Handicaps to flesh them out... I got completely stuck with what I am working on right now, but it has been a very good lesson on rules writing, so I am not that sad.

Thanks again for the interest.