The goals of the project are as follows:
1) remove the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards effect
2) remove the clunky tables (too much math)
3) retain the race-class-skill-feat system of the d20 and the use of the d20 dice
4) focus equally on combat and non-combat
5) make it easier for newbies than D&D

Link: http://treskri.wikidot.com/mechanika-dla-treskri.
Warning! Text in Polish, however, Google Translate should do its job - there isn't much text now, mostly bare-bones rules.

I won't translate it into English right now, for two reasons:
a) keeping track of a project in development in two language versions is too hard (making sure both versions are up-to-date)
b) not enough time (studying at uni)

--------------------------------------------------------
I need help mostly with point 4) of the goals. The indie is mostly based on d20, but with stuff adapted from other rulesets - for example, I saw Action Points in Fallout and thought they are easier to understand than D&D's (swift/minor)free/move/standard/full-round actions.

P.S. I take ideas concerning the name of the project itself.

So, it basically sounds like you want to mainly want to use the d20 OGL, but want to re-work the classes.  As to point 4 -- to me, that just seems to be a matter of refocusing the scenes/encounters ..... maybe some fluff that gives more rewards for non-combat activities (and, in turn, lowers the rewards for combat).

The "quadratic wizards" effect is simply a matter of redesigning the magic system from the ground up (I know that I said "simply", but that's actually a pretty tall order when trying to keep it within the confines of still being operational in the d20 system).

To what clunky tables are you referring?

Honestly, the d20 system is not newb-friendly -- and it's specifically because of the way that the class-skill-feat system interacts internally.  Another major issue is the "ivory tower" design methodology.  Combine that with the sheer number of options, then, as far as I can tell, these issues are pretty much inextricably linked.

To me, based on your design goals, it sounds like you want to design a d20-compatible campaign setting.  Which is totally cool -- just remember that your design goals need to mesh with your work efforts.
[/twocents]

Also, for some reason, when I hit the "translate" button, it says that the document is already in English -- which is clearly not the case.
I also tried to translate it "back" to Polish, and then back to English; but got the same result.

I want to make d20 based system, yes, but one that is easier for the newbies than D&D is. I combine stuff from all editions of D&D, taking what was done well in 3e and in 4e and changing what was done badly.
Yes, I am aware that it is not possible to change some aspects of the system completely, and that some legacy of the d20 will remain.

I rework not only the classes, but also the spells system and the way skills are gained. Attributes are also slightly changed. I also lumped together all sorts of special qualities and special attacks and feats - under the name of 'advantages'.

Clunky tables? I mean all those tables in D&D - equipment tables, damage tables, class level tables, attributes tables. Too much math.

Someone suggested taking a look at Star Wars talent trees.

Re Google Translate: I pasted the link itself, chose the language as Polish (for some reason, GT suggested Swedish [?!]) and translated into English. It worked. The result is not perfect, but it does the job. But indeed, GT language detection is weird.

Main features:
- lack of levels
- saving throws as in D&D
- attributes as in D&D, but replaced by the modifiers- HP representing the character's stamina
- action points instead of the minor/move/full-round
- a varied selection of class and race as in D&D
- body parts specified for damage
- 'advantages' bought for XP
- XP given by the DM as he wishes
- some of the more powerful 'advantages' require ranks (a certain number of XP has to be spent earlier)
- no criticals, no random damage dice
- no spell failure
- changed armor check penalties
- advancement paths for given classes
- less skills than in D&D (16 for now)
- every class (fighter and magic-user to use the AD&D terminology) uses the same system
- every class has access to manevuers (a bit of a cross between Tome of Battle and 4e)
- XP price for some potentially unbalancing spells (scry, teleport etc.)

The skill system is 100% done (I only have to add the missing descriptions). The classes are about halfway done - that is, some of the classes are missing. There are several examples of manevuers, advancement paths (equivalent of PrCs) and monsters. Combat rules are 90% done. Equipment lists are halfway done.

I'm wondering whether to leave 'advantages' (feats, special qualities, special attacks lumped together) as they are or should I use something similar to talent trees from SW?

Should I stick to the D&D nine-alignment system (modified a bit) or should I use something else?

No comments? No ideas? I want some input as to whether I should leave XP and other prizes in the DM's hands or if I should enforce some rules... What about the social part of the ruleset?

What's play meant to be about? What do you want play to revolve around? For example - if you want play to be about courtly intrigues....well, removing levels just aint gunna do much one way or another. So I look at the list of changes or similarities and have no idea what your shooting for and whether any of it is, by my estimate (FWIW), will work toward your goal.

Callan wrote:
What's play meant to be about? What do you want play to revolve around? For example - if you want play to be about courtly intrigues....well, removing levels just aint gunna do much one way or another. So I look at the list of changes or similarities and have no idea what your shooting for and whether any of it is, by my estimate (FWIW), will work toward your goal.

Seems to me that some of your goals are in opposition.

You want to simplify D&D, but you're keeping lots of the complicated parts of D&D (feats, skills, etc), and then adding more components that are arguably more complicated than D&D:

- Advantages (with ranks) that are purchasable
- Body location damage
- XP prices for some spells

The way to make a simpler game is the reduce the number of up-front choices that players make and to streamline each of the systems in the game.

Advantages = feats and skills and special qualities and special attacks. It's easier to keep track of, say 5 advantages, than of 4+ skills and 4+ feats plus special qualities of a D&D character of a comparable level.
Body location damage is an attempt to make it a little more realistic than D&D is. This system is not merely "D&D simplified", it's meant to be my own system also.
XP prices for spells were present in several iterations of D&D - IIRC, 2e and 3e.

Zireael wrote: Play is meant to be like in Warhammer or D&D, but balanced. Not leaning towards combat, 75/25 as in 4e, but 50/50 or even more in favor of roleplaying and social skills.

Advantages = feats and skills and special qualities and special attacks. It's easier to keep track of, say 5 advantages, than of 4+ skills and 4+ feats plus special qualities of a D&D character of a comparable level.

3) retain the race-class-skill-feat system of the d20 and the use of the d20 dice

'advantages' bought for XP

3) retain the race-class-skill-feat system of the d20 and the use of the d20 dice

Rewritten: 3) retain the race-class system of the d20 and the use of d20 dice; use advantages as a way of simplifying the skill-feat system

The advantages work mostly as the feats did. They give a numerical bonus to the test. For example, Skilled gives a +5 bonus on a certain skill check. Weapon Focus gives +2 to hit. Special attacks work as combat-related feats that allow you to do more stuff did, like Spring Attack. Special qualities are either adapted to work just by giving new abilities, or are converted to numerical bonuses. Spell resistance was removed completely.

Combat works mostly like in D&D, though I'm wondering whether I should tweak armors and AC a bit. There is no random damage, however. You roll your attack against enemy's Endurance - if you win by a lot, he's severely wounded; if you win barely, he's just wounded.

There are some monsters over at the wiki which show how the system works.

Armors give DR now.

I tweaked the prices - mundane equipment (poles, ropes, food rations) are for a number of cp, normal equipment (armor, weapons, mounts) for a number of sp, and magic items are for gp. The numbers are mostly the same as in D&D 3.5 or PF. This is to reflect the fact that magic items are extremely rare and hard to obtain. I'm also wondering whether I should give some items a XP price.

To be done:
- manevuers
- a description of ability scores in RL terms
- short description for each class
- magic items

tonyakerman wrote:

Spell resistance was removed completely.

Should agree to revive them back right?

I don't understand the question. Spell resistance as a numerical value is gone. Creatures which are spell-resistant will simply have bonuses to saving throws regarding spells.

Locational damage and tracking action points is "simpler" but somehow critical hits and random damage dice are "too complex"? Honestly sounds like you're removing some of the funnest, core elements.

bosky wrote:
Locational damage and tracking action points is "simpler" but somehow critical hits and random damage dice are "too complex"? Honestly sounds like you're removing some of the funnest, core elements.

1) HP renamed to Stamina Points. 1/2 and other fractions changed to be the full number of advantages.
2) Compulsory training introduced.
3) Trying to decide which dice are the best.

Money system added.

Any ideas what I could add/improve? I repeat, Google Translate allows you to read the system as it is now.

I'm thinking of tweaking the way attributes work.
1) maybe one attribute governs defense and the other attack - a bit like in Legend
2) maybe give a choice of the attribute from two (Str vs. Con; Int vs. Wis; Dex vs. Cha) - a bit like 4e

I want every attribute to be useful in a way.

I'll have to work on describing each of the class in flavor terms.

-------------------------
Today, I added starvation/thirst and suffocation rules.
I'm thinking of adding the aristocrat class at last and the templates (half-fiend, half-fey, vampire, etc. etc.).

Aging rules added.

I'll work on the aristocrat tomorrow.

Aristocrat and adept classes added. The messenger of the gods' advancement path added. Vampire template added.

Here you can find the complete development history of this indie.

Sword sage and faith warrior classes added.

http://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=treskri.wikidot.com/mechanika-dla-treskri - a link to the GT translated version

Alignment traits added. Flaws added. A drug named ‘mad desire’ added. Planetouched templates added.

Lots of stuff added, including reworked weapon proficiencies, descendant of the gods template, and mundane items.

Encumbrance rules, expanded equipment lists, poisons and illnesses added... and something else.

Stamina points tweaked, all attributes now contribute to them.

Hi,

I have to lay down a rule for you: stop posting updates of this kind, please. This is a discussion forum, not a development update blog. Please provide a topic for discussion and wait for replies. I'm very supportive of your design effort and would like to see it receive attention here, but update posting leads people to ignore your thread.

Best, Ron

@ up: Well, I tried, but there was little input in the beginning, so I decided to post updates also. Anyway, here are things I'm debating about:

Some things I need input on:
1) Split offense and defense and use different attributes for them?
2) Allow choosing an attribute for the offense/defense from pairs (Str vs. Con; Int vs. Wis; Dex vs. Cha)?
3) Merge XP and gp together like in OD&D?
4) Dodge and parry like in Conan RPG?

-----------------------------
Thinking of expanding the attributes from 0-10 scale to 0-100 scale.
What is your take on that?

Also, I'm thinking of making skills (both combat and non-combat) also fit the 1-100 scale. The bonus to the d20 throw would be the number divided by 10. 2 points per 1000 XP spent.

I'm thinking of using several d6s and keeping the numbers and adding a bonus from the 1-100 scale.

Also, I want to detach combat skills from classes/number of "advantages" and I want to reduce "advantages", especially those that only give +x bonus.

In the future, I might consider removing classes altogether.

Therefore, I need help about the dice mechanics. Detaching combat will come next once I have worked out the dice.

Decided on using d6s, but without changing the scale. After all, ease is the prime goal of this ruleset....

Renamed "advantages" to "developments" and started pruning them a bit.

Thinking on a new skill list.

Input, input, folks, pleease!

I'm going to take it for a spin this summer, but I need it to be reasonably complete and concise. Help me!

I've been reading through the rules you've got here and while I don't disagree with any of the mechanics per se, I think you've created something just as complex as D&D if not more so, and that didn't seem to be your intent.
One of the biggest things I would suggest is making the DM do more work, more calculations. Making XP at the DM's discretion seems like a bad idea to me. For one thing I don't trust DM's to always be fair and even if they are some players just aren't as creative as others. This means that near the end of a game I may be way more powerful than the guy sitting next to me simply because I did cooler stuff but now he can barely be of any use compared to me, how would that make him feel about the game? For another thing, I firmly believe the DM should have a more complex job than the players. Here it seems like the other way around. You should try shifting a lot of the rulings on character dev and play to the DM, make the players pick a few things and based on those the DM can do most of the calculations. This way it's way less work for the players (the people who are new to the game) and way more work for the DM (the person who knows all the rules by heart already).

Also, calculating out-of-combat movement in travel time seems the epitome of unnecessary number crunching. I just image this exchange:
DM "All right, so you're traveling from one kingdom to another, that will take...(takes out calculator to figure out how many days/hours)"
Player "Do we run into any monsters or people if we take longer?"
DM "No, not till you get to the kingdom."
Player "Are we going to run out of food and have to worry about getting more?"
DM "No."
Player "Then I guess we get to the kingdom...why are you still crunching numbers?"

I'll shift the travel time rules to the optional rules page. They could come in handy with fast-paced or highly time-dependent campaigns or quests.

About shifting the weight of counting and rules to the DM: What would you shift? The calculations of saving throws? Something more? Should the DM choose skills or the player? (there's some counting involved in the skills)

Should I remove more "advantages"? Should I add more? Should I shift them to the DM side of the game?

I'm trying to cut down on the number of classes.
Wizard, rogue, cleric, druid, monk and warrior are here to stay. Is it possible to make all the other classes "advancement paths" of these?