http://www.geocities.com/greginkelaar/projects.html and then click on Terrae Novae.

Anything in italics involved the game mechanics. Any thoughts, questions, or suggestions? Specifically, I'd like to know if the magic system works, and what type of dice would work well with this system (I figure either this could be either a d20 system or a d-percentages system).

I know you want to talk about mechanics, and I skipped most of the flavour text on my read through, but I found a the names of the two groups a little confusing: Nova Terrans and Neo Terrans. Why are they both new? And why have the Neo Terrans named the universe Novae Terrae -- shouldn't it be the other way around? (Plus, to be pedantic, you're mixing latin and greek with "Neo Terran" which is a bit strange since the other is purely latin).

I like the basic mechanic, at least as I understand it from the fist few sentances in that section: do what you want, but it will cost you in terms of fatigue if you're not good enough. Is there a limit to this? I mean, can you decide to jump over a tall building if you're willing to take the fatigue? You talk about fatigue knocking wizards out when they do too much magic -- what does fatigue do to other people?

What I don't understand is the talk of "boosting chance of success," (page 8) since no dice were mentioned before. I thought it was diceless. (I liked that fact that it was diceless too.)

[edit]D'oh! I compltely missed the fact that you were asking about die mechanics in your post. Sorry about that. Why not go diceless though?[/edit]

Basing all magic on willpower...seems like it makes mages simpler than other people. I mean, if you're into combat, you'll need strength and agility right? But why don't mages need intelligence?

The Priest stuff seems cool, but I want more detailed rules about how to gain faith. What exactly is involved in "telling stories" for instance, for a player? You might consider changing the name of Faith: it seems to me like it's really a measurement of divine Favour.

Why can't elite classes ever level? Why would anyone want to swithc into one, if they can't ever get any better? It seems like you're looking for some way to balance they're special abilities. Maybe go for something a little less absolute, like just an EP penalty, or the loss of fatigue or abilities following certian circumstances. E.G. a hexologist being fatigued if he doesn't follow the right precautions when mixing magic and tech.

You've got some good ideas there, but the mechanics need to be tighter. Why do you have classes? I'm not saying it's a bad idea but genuinely asking. What function do they serve?

About the names (Neo Terran and Nova Terran), I am not a linguist. When I was naming them, I though Neo Terran for "new humans" and Nova Terran for "humans of the stars". I had no idea I was contradicting myself.

I must of just left out the fact that gaining a certain amount of fatigue knocks a character unconscious, regardless of class. I'll add that on my next update.

A diceless system would be interesting, but I have a few questions. How does character creation work in diceless systems? How does combat work?

Magic in Terrae Novae is manipulated through sheer force of will, so little intellegence is required. I figure that it makes more sense for magic to be will-based and technology to be intellect-based.

Telling stories is basically telling tales of the deeds of a deity and his/her champions. Just like in real life, when you go to church or temple, they tell you stories of the one deity and his creations, and most likely you believe more in that one deity. Divine Favor might be a better name for it.

Elite classes do get better, just not like other classes. They gain ranks, not levels. Like you said, this is to offset their power. I might have to change that. The extra fatigue penalty might work better.

Could you clarify the classes question? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Kilor,

Nova actually means "new" in Latin (as Eero Tuovinen pointed out in this thread). It's funny that I just posted about my current game, which also has "Novae" in the title, so we have two "Novae" threads going at once. If you want to say "of the stars," you can use Stellarum. (And I'm not a linguist: just took two years of Latin in college and have easy access to a decent dictionary.)


As far as using a diceless system goes, what would the problem with character generation be? I assume your're referring to stat generation? You're already defining a lot of each character with his class, so why not just establish some baseline stats, and allow some shuffling of points? How would combat work? Just base everything around fatigue and stats. I have a strength of 4. Let's say that means I can clobber Jim at level 4; but Jim has toughness 2, so I only do 2 damage. If I really want to lay the smack down, I can take fatigue to do more damage -- but I'll be fatigued then. In the end it would be about clever use of abilities: what's the most I can do with the least effort? Obviously it would take a little thought to get this working. I could go on, but I want to address a more general point.

The rules so far have D&D written all over them. You've admitted as much in a past thread, so I know you don't take that as an insult. But, respectfully, it seems like you're porting a lot without thinking about whether or not you really need it, and what function it will serve. You said (also in the previosu thread) that you wanted to create a dungeon crawl, but with technology. That's fine, but if you really just want D&D in space, why not just get one of the innumerable d20 games out there? Or use d20 yourself? To be blunt: If your game is just like D&D, why would anyone need your game? Now, perhaps the differences between TN and D&D seem large, but there are a lot of similarities. Someone pointed to a few threads to check out earlier, did you ever read them? I would strongly suggest doing so if you haven't. You might start here:

Fantasy Heartbreakers

Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designer's, Know Your Hobby!

These really get back to my last question, about classes. Give those some time to digest.

Hmm...Terrans Novae and Terrans Stellarum certainly sound better than Neo Terrans and Nova Terrans. I'll change that over the weekend.

That's a good idea about the diceless system. Now that I have an idea of how one would work, I can get started on it (good thing I didn't create any dice tables yet).

On each thread of mine where someone posts a reference to another thread, I try to read everything and come away with something useful. Heck, I even read threads that have nothing to do with Terrae Novae. Good thing too, because if I hadn't, the magic system in Terrae Novae would be very different. The ones you mention are interesting. I may have to read/play the games they mention, to get a good idea of what to do or not do, as the case may be.

As for the comment about the game seeming very D&D-ish, I admit you have a point. As you stated, DnD is one of the only PnP games I've played, the other being Marvel Super Heroes (the PnP version and the card game version). A friend of mine has the book for a game called Aberrant, which is a super hero PnP game. I've never actually played it, but the mechanics certainly look interesting (but certainly not for a fantasy/sci-fi game). I've also played a whole lot of RPGs for the PC, NES, Playstation, etc., but most of them are no help at all in making a PnP game (people often refer to Arcanum when reading about my game. Well, I own Arcanum, and while it gave me an idea of how a technician class could work, I disagree with a lot of the ways things are done in that game). Some of the things in Terrae Novae are DnD-ish for the sole reason that I can't think of any other way to do them (i.e. the magic system was originally going to be almost exactly like the one in DnD).

Of course, that's the reason why I joined this forum board (that and I have to wait about seven hours for my carpool to pick me up from school). I want the voices and opinions of people who have played other games so that I can make mine less like DnD and more, well, unique.

Recently, I've picked up my copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Sci-Fi (don't laugh; it has a lot of information on writing and publishing science fiction for short stories, novels, etc.). I try to use the part that refers to Traditional Fantasy for the parts of TN that deal with magic (as stated in the book, Traditional Fantasy is the fantasy that predates JRR Tolkien's style, who wrote what is known as High Fantasy. In Traditional Fantasy, such as Grimms Fairy Tales, etc., there is no explanation for why sausages can talk or why fish can grant wishes, they just do. I've tryed to incorporate some of that into the magic system). I can't decide what the parts that deal with science should be though.

I'd like to know what you think is...well, I don't want to say WRONG with my system, but perhaps...unoriginal. I imagine that the stats I came up with are highly derivative, despite the fact I tried to come up with the least technical names I could. Also, I suspect the Technician's list of inventions duplicates the magic system of DnD, despit my tries to make it not like a magic system at all. Also, some of the classes are based on those in other games I've played, but unlike everything else in TN, I decided to go with something players are familiar with rather than creating every class from scratch (it's hard enough creating all the races, monsters, magics, and deities from scratch without creating classes from scratch). Other than that, I honestly have no clue what is derivative or how to make it less derivative.

Side-Note 1: Originally, I also had it where spells could be combined to create spells with different effects. In fact, Reincarnation, a Life magic spell in the PDF, was originally a combination of Life Magic and Time Magic. Should I bring back the combination system for spells? If I do, how will that effect the magic system?

Side-Note 2: The Machinal were once a playable race. Should I make them a playable race again? I haven't done so yet because I imagine they would provide too much of an opportunity for munchkining/powergaming (sentient machine characters would probably upgrade themselves as much as possible). EDIT: I have since looked at my PDF and have seen that I did make them a playable race. I'll probably change that over the weekend.

Side-Note 3: There was another stat I thought of earlier today, but I have forgotten it. Just to let you know in case I mention some weird stat that isn't defined anywhere else.

Hi Kilor,

Glad to hear you've been looking at the old threads. The Forge is a great resource, and will have you examining a lot of what seemed necessary in RPGs.

Kilor Di wrote: I may have to read/play the games they mention, to get a good idea of what to do or not do, as the case may be.... As you stated, DnD is one of the only PnP games I've played, the other being Marvel Super Heroes (the PnP version and the card game version).

Kilor Di wrote: I'd like to know what you think is...well, I don't want to say WRONG with my system, but perhaps...unoriginal.

Kilor Di wrote: I imagine that the stats I came up with are highly derivative, despite the fact I tried to come up with the least technical names I could. Also, I suspect the Technician's list of inventions duplicates the magic system of DnD, despit my tries to make it not like a magic system at all. Also, some of the classes are based on those in other games I've played.... Other than that, I honestly have no clue what is derivative or how to make it less derivative.

One thing I forgot about until recently...

You said (also in the previosu thread) that you wanted to create a dungeon crawl, but with technology

I would go with the war-based theme. This is more flexible, and if the players of a particular game want to wander around some sewers killing baddies, there's nothing to stop them.

As far as munchikinism goes... I think this is another unquestioned concept you may be porting over from D&D. Munchkinism is a term that gets slung about a lot, but frequently without any precise meaning. It's often used to slag people who don't accept the One True Way of role-playing, as seen by the person using it. I would strongly urge you to read over Ron's GNS and Other Matters essay.

What specifically strikes you as so horrible about a cleric trying to pick a lock? The fact that lock-picking isn't explicitly part of his character's abilities? That he's muscling in on another character's territory (presumably there was some other better-equipped character aruond to pick the lock)?

The new PDF is on my site. I've added a lot of new sections, including an optional ruleset section (with the optional "Classless" system). The character creation section, the skills section, and the weapon section could all use a look. Also, I added a new species, the Orican. Just for those keeping up with the different playable races. Quick question, I'm trying to break away from the standard "these guys can only be warriors" or "these guys are the best thieves" thing that DnD has. Any suggestions on how to do that with what I have so far?

And actually, the way I have TN set up, there's perfectly nothing wrong with a priest picking locks (provided I can create a deity of stealth or thievery or something). That was just the only example I could think of at the time.

Yeah, I think I will stick with the war-based theme. Thanks.

And yeah, I think the "munchinism" thing is definitely a DnD thing. After all, you never hear people saying that the players created Marvel Super Heroes that are too powerful. My only concern on that front is that I want everyone to have fun, and as far as I know, GMs don't have much fun making campaigns for characters that can do everything and then some.

I'm sort of just going to go in order of the rule set here....

I looked over the different species a bit, and one thing I noticed was that your descriptions are primarily about physical features, like eye and hair color. Beyond this, each race can mostly be summed up by a single line, as you said. Frex:

TN Rules wrote: Zhattarrak ... these creatures have a natural gift for magic.

You have a point on the species thing. I've tried to set the Orican up as a ritualistic race, but other than that, I haven't done a lot of work with culture. I'll do that this week.

I made the distinction between Combat and Killing weapons because honestly, there are some weapons that would not be completely effective in combat, or during a war for that matter. I include knives as Killing weapons because although you can kill someone with a knife, it would not be smart to use a knife against someone that uses, for instance, a Battle Sword. Also, not all weapons used in combat can kill, or at least not as effectively as a Killing weapon; I'd hate to think how long it would take to kill a creature with a staff.

The Infamy and Legend points thing are kind of like a person's reputation. I don't think I mentioned this in the PDF (in fact, I think I just thought of it now), but Infamy and Legend are kind of spread like rumors or tall tales. Not all NPCs would know about your character saving babies from a burning building, or that you set the building on fire in the first place. But, as your Legend and Infamy points increase, there would be more people that would be familiar with your exploits. I think I might add something about gaining Legend possibly increasing a priest's Divine Favour (Infamy if the priest worships an evil deity). In you have the maximum of both Legend and Infamy, it would be like the guards don't really want to arrest you because of your heroic actions, but they're just doing their jobs (and your character killed one guy too many). I might have to tweak that a little.

Yeah, I think I do need to go into more detail about the Classless system. I'll do some work on that this weekend. There are two reasons I don't make the Classless system the default: 1) I personally prefer the game with classes, and 2) I would have to add some more game-balancing rules in order to make the game fit with the setting (such as saying only certain races can buy jury-rigging or spell crafting).

All this talk about munchinism reminds me of my first DnD campaign. The DM munchined the PCs quite a bit, but it was still fun. I only thought of those characters as a problem afterwards, when I learned what munchinism was. I shouldn't have a problem with those characters though, because the game was fun for all parties involved (especially for the player that came in with a half-dragon ninja and left with an immortal demi-god were-dragon ninja clan lord, complete with three wives, one of which was a genie and another of which is a half-dragon demi-god).

Kilor Di wrote: I include knives as Killing weapons because although you can kill someone with a knife, it would not be smart to use a knife against someone that uses, for instance, a Battle Sword.

Kilor Di wrote: There are two reasons I don't make the Classless system the default: 1) I personally prefer the game with classes, and 2) I would have to add some more game-balancing rules in order to make the game fit with the setting (such as saying only certain races can buy jury-rigging or spell crafting).

Kilor Di wrote: The DM munchined the PCs quite a bit, but it was still fun. I only thought of those characters as a problem afterwards, when I learned what munchinism was.

You have a point about the knife thing. Two people wielding knives should be able to fight. I just always figured that knives weren't as good in combat as they were in stealth (BTW, I'm changing Killing weapons to Stealth weapons). Of course, it depends on the type of knife as well. When I think of knives, I think of daggers or switchblades. For all I know, you could be thinking of machetes.

You also have a point on the Classless option as well. I'll start fleshing that out this week.

And is it just me, or are we the only ones who post on this thread?

Anyway, I just now thought of something I could add, since this will be a war-based game. When a party is created, the players also choose an army to be a part of. If they don't choose an army, or if later on they leave/get kicked out of the army, then they can create an army of your own. The soldiers of their army can either be recruits (soldiers with no special training) that you put in various fields of combat (melee combat, ranged combat, magical/technological combat, etc.) and eventually they become experts, or experts of different fields that you hire at a greater cost. I haven't figured out how to determine how many soldiers a party can recruit, or how they go about recruiting them (for technological characters, it might be as simple as sending a message out on their Micro-Mate). Also, if a party chooses to be part of an already established army, I'll have to figure out a way to determine the size of the army they have joined. The party can join an army at any point; if they don't join an army at character creation, they can still choose to join an army later on. Anything you can think of that would help with this idea?

I like the army idea. It immediately ties the characters together, and gives them common goals. You mentioned players choosing and army, and characters potentially making one in-game. Why not allow the players to collectively make their own at the outset? By this I don't mean that their characters are the army's leaders, but simply that the players decide what kind of army to be in: it's size, character, leaders, history, and so on. I think this could be really cool. For instance, you could make an army that has a history of always fighting its way out of ambushes. Then, in game, if the character's get jumped, they get a +2 to their rolls or something.

Have you even seen Ars Magica? You might want to check it out. It has a well-known system for creating a "coven" (mage's group) for the characters to be from. Lots of advantages/disadvantages type stuff.

You might further want to look at AM for its troupe style play, where each player cycles between his main character, a mage in this case, and lesser "grogs." You could do a similar thing with whatever army grunts are attached to the PCs' group.

Thanks, I'll do that (if I can find any material about Ars Magica on the web, that is).

I like your comments about the characters creating the history of their army, the size, it's leaders, etc. It definitely adds something.

Also, something else I've been thinking about adding: an order of priests who worship Lorena, Cabul, and Sare, three sisters who are Goddesses of the Moons. I figure the priests of these goddesses would have thief-like abilities. I haven't figured out what their divine power would be yet, though. Just to get some input on the idea before I put it in the next PDF.

No comments? Oh well, that last post wasn't really a mechanics issue anyway.

I just thought of something the other day. How should an army work in battle, anyway? By this, I mean should the characters all be fighting in turn-based combat (like DnD, which might not work well in larger battles), or should they fight some other way? The only alternative I can think of is that the GM would make maps for each battle beforehand, and the players would have to devise battle strategies both before and during battle (in case their previous strategy didn't work, or if they are ambushed), such as shooting the mountain-side to try to cause an avalanche or something.

Well it just depends on what roll the characters are taking. If they're just grunts...yeah, sure, have 'em slugging it out in the midst of a crazy battlefield. I would probably use a modified version of the normal combat rules. Things are far more hectic, and you don't want hundreds of rolls for a battle, so you can just make some representative rolls for performance over the course of the whole deal. Then just cut to smaller important engagements, like when a character is confronted in hand to hand by some beefy enemy seargent, or for the final push against a bunker.

If the characters are in leadership positions, have them do some strategy and planning, sure. I don't know if you want to go so far as to have a mini-strategy game in the midst of it all, but moving around some counters might be cool.

I haven't posted in a while. Guess I've just been getting lazy or something.

Anyway, new update. The playable characters descriptions have been changed, and a new section called Army Creation has been added.

I also changed Killing weapons to Stealth weapons. Just something I forgot to post last week.

Oh, and do you think this game is ready for playtesting yet, or do I need to refine the game some more first? I had planned on doing some playtesting in April, but with my schedule the way it is, I'm going to have to move it to May. (This is to give me time to design character sheets and stuff.)

If you're making a d20 game, make it a d20 game.

Dav

Actually, the game uses a diceless system at this point. I may change it to a D-whatever system later on if the diceless system doesn't work out too well.

Any other comments about the game's mechanics? I haven't managed to make any changes this past weekend, but I think I'll try next weekend.