Ok, don't shoot me, but this is, loosely speaking, a D20-based discussion. Specifically, for our setting, Ogalepihcra, we want to include 3 complete sets of rules, each designed for a different style of play. One of those will be loosely D20-based, designed for a larger-than-life heroic style of play. (Though D&D players will likely be rather suprised at the definition of "heroic" being used.)

At this point, nothing is set--so while i'll speak in the definite for everything below, consider it all to be planned changes, not definite changes. This means, feel free to tear this all the way down to the foundation (social-centric, instead of combat-centric, D20), and change everything else along the way.

Setting background: You can read about the rumel a bit at <http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net/rumel/rumel_con.pdf>. So far, we don't have anything about the anaugi online.

Ok, so here's a summary of the major changes:
--> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)
--> add combat skills to the skill list. probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc. For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more. Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).
--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.
--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.
--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)
--> Classes no longer have BAB/Defense Bonus, hit dice, or the standard saving throws.
--> Instead, we're plugging in a whole social interaction system. So every class has a Base Influence, Base Reputation, and saves vs. Coercion, Proposition, and Persuasion.
--> Also, you gain a Popularity die with each level, which is rolled (once) to generate your Popularity Points.
--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here). If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost. Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.
--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both. The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats. Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions). These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.
--> Many (most?) of the combat feats would be gone, 'cause they're unnecessary when you can just adjust your skill levels.
--> A whole new class of social feats would show up--the mechanical equivalents of the nixed combat feats.
--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated. The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges. Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow. Or something else.

So, feedback? Obvious pitfalls? Better ideas?

Just my own personal, but I've never liked feats. Why not include the social things like Intimidation, Bluff, etc. as skills, just like the new combat skills you propose?

I like all the other changes you have suggested.

Hi woodelf,

Are you familiar with the Influence rules in Fvlminata? They are reeeeally interesting, although the presentation is a bit hampered by the two authors' slight differences in how to apply them.

The "influencer" player actually states three possible general ways for the target to react, and the degree-of-effect roll gives the possible range of the three that the "influenced" player gets to pick from. Clearly, the better the degree-of-effect roll, the narrower the range.

Both my group and Jake Norwood's play of Fvlminata found these rules to be fun and fascinating, eclipsing most of the other aspects of the game.

You might also check out the Repartee rules in Lace & Steel, as well as the awesome Persuade/Rebuff system in The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Review of Fvlminata is currently in prep.

woodelf wrote: --> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)

--> add combat skills to the skill list. probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc. For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more. Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).

--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.

--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.

--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)

--> Classes no longer have BAB/Defense Bonus, hit dice, or the standard saving throws.
--> Instead, we're plugging in a whole social interaction system. So every class has a Base Influence, Base Reputation, and saves vs. Coercion, Proposition, and Persuasion.
--> Also, you gain a Popularity die with each level, which is rolled (once) to generate your Popularity Points.

--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here). If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost. Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.

--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both. The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats. Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions). These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.

--> Many (most?) of the combat feats would be gone, 'cause they're unnecessary when you can just adjust your skill levels.
--> A whole new class of social feats would show up--the mechanical equivalents of the nixed combat feats.

--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated. The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges. Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow. Or something else.

ethan_greer wrote: Just my own personal, but I've never liked feats. Why not include the social things like Intimidation, Bluff, etc. as skills, just like the new combat skills you propose?

I like all the other changes you have suggested.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi woodelf,

Are you familiar with the Influence rules in Fvlminata? They are reeeeally interesting, although the presentation is a bit hampered by the two authors' slight differences in how to apply them.

The "influencer" player actually states three possible general ways for the target to react, and the degree-of-effect roll gives the possible range of the three that the "influenced" player gets to pick from. Clearly, the better the degree-of-effect roll, the narrower the range.

Both my group and Jake Norwood's play of Fvlminata found these rules to be fun and fascinating, eclipsing most of the other aspects of the game.

You might also check out the Repartee rules in Lace & Steel, as well as the awesome Persuade/Rebuff system in The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Review of Fvlminata is currently in prep.

Mike Holmes wrote:

woodelf wrote: --> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)

Why not really tip it and go 1/2/3? BOD, INT, WIS, PRE, COM, WIT

--> add combat skills to the skill list. probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc. For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more. Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).

Why not just a Combat Skill? That really alters the arena away from combat (while still enabling it if it should happen). Essentially think of Combat as just another (very crude) social skill. Persuasion via force.

--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.

OK, now I'm really interested. This could get my vote for best d20 supplement in next year's Indie Awards if done right.

--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.

Skip it. HP = BOD.

--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)

Crit = you win, however you like. That's how I'd do it.

--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here). If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost. Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.

--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both. The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats. Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions). These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.

Some of these sound like skills. But, yes, some should definitely be feats.

--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated. The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges. Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow. Or something else.

All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

I'll be really interested to see what it looks like. Can you give us some example classes?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

woodelf wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

Like unarmed attacks in D&D? That's a point in its favor, antecedent-wise.

Hi woodelf,

You almost have the Fvlminata example right, but not quite.

The thing to realize is that all three outcomes represent the result of a successful Influence attempt. None of them will occur if the basic Influence roll fails in the first place. So all of them represent versions of success.

It might read more like:

a) Tammy happily washes the car and is pleased that Sue asked her as opposed to, say, Amanda.

b) Tammy washes the car, but Sue has to drop off Tammy's mail at the post office.

c) Tammy washes the car but gives Sue an ultimatum about "friends don't treat friends like servants" and quite likely bad-mouths Sue at the next get-together of the neighborhood action group.

Again, the range of these options for Tammy's player is only valid insofar as Sue's player makes the Influence roll in the first place. If she fails it, then all three options go "poof" away, and Tammy doesn't wash the car at all, and is free to react as Tammy's player sees fit.

When two characters are using Influence on one another simultaneously, this can get interesting - the rules are quite clear about how only one of them will actually succeed, but if you don't get the initial success/fail concept for one roll, then trying to play and arbitrate the mutual attempts is impossible.

Best,
Ron

P.S. All of these presupposes that the group is OK with player-characters using Influence on one another. My own group and Jake's group both like this a lot, but the second edition of Fvlminata recommends or even dictates (not sure) that Influence may only ever be used by player-characters on NPCs.

Yeah, player vs player influence would almost require a hefty degree of target player editing of the 3 choices to make sure that they also fit within the players character concept (for instance Tammy might be the type to bad mouth but has something more subtle in mind). For a group where everybody has full buy in to each others characters this wouldn't be so much of a problem because everyone would already have a pretty good idea of what "the character would do", but for groups with more proprietary views of the character sheet in order for something like this to work there would need to be some formal editing rules in place. Or even reverse who gets to pick the 3 responses with the GM ensuring that it is Good, Better, and Best and not a stealth "no".

Interesting....

So, basically, when someone goes up a level they will gain Popularity Points instead of Hit Points and something like a base Influence bonus instead of an Attack bonus?

So levels actually correspond to something like social status?

If I'm right here, is it possible to gain or loose levels quickly?

Stuart

szilard wrote: Interesting....

So, basically, when someone goes up a level they will gain Popularity Points instead of Hit Points and something like a base Influence bonus instead of an Attack bonus?

So levels actually correspond to something like social status?

If I'm right here, is it possible to gain or loose levels quickly?

Stuart