Eclipse

Now that i have been here a while, and gotten a bit of a feel for "how things are done", i've decided to present my system mechanics in a more practical and accessible way.

Ok, so Eclipse is loosely based on the d20 system (immediately 90% of audience leaves), in that it uses a d20 as the main die, and has skills and attributes and abilities (feats). practically every roll will come down to either a skill roll, a direct attribute roll, or a combat roll (see the combat sections below). no base attack or base saves. your character improves by distributing a number of attribute points determined by their class and learning skills (see "learning skills"). logistically, its possible for a level 20 character to have an attribute modifier as high as +40 (raw score of 100), but in reality its likely most level 20 characters will have two or three attributes with modifers around +22 and the rest of their attributes as low as when they were level 1. most level one characters will have a few attributes with negative modifiers, and a few with positive modifiers (averages between -3 and +3)

8 Attributes:
Power=Raw physical strength
Constitution=fortitude and life force
Speed=small quick movements (single limb)
Agility=large movements (whole body)
Crystal=memory, learning capacity
Fluid=logic and analysis, quick thinking
Beauty=physical beauty and inner beauty, overall attractiveness
Influence=force of will and character, luck (see "luck" below)

Melee Combat
there are only three things really important for melee combat: AC, Power and Speed.
AC is the hardness of your body+your armor. not "how hard you are to hit", more like "how hard it is to push a sword through you". a medium sized character's base AC is 10, and this increases/decreases according to size. in combat, a character is likely to have an AC that is equal to their Base AC plus the AC of their armor. this is opposed against any power checks. an total AC of 30 means an opponent needs to roll a Power of at least 30 to deal any damage at all.
Power is rolled as d20 +your characters Power mod +the Power mod of your weapon.
Speed is rolled as d20 +your characters Speed mod +the Speed mod of your weapon.
all melee weapons are given with this convention WeaponName(+/-X, +/-Y), where X=the Speed bonus and Y=the Power bonus. for example, a long sword is written as LongSword(-3, +5), meaning it is slower to swing a longsword than it is to throw a punch, and your hits are more powerful with a longsword than they are with a punch. a Quarterstaff(+4, +2) means you are much faster at reacting with a quarterstaff than unarmed (especially due to its duel ends) and you can hit someone harder with a quarterstaff than unarmed, but not as hard as a longsword (plus a longsword has an edge). a Rapier(+4, -2) is even faster to move than a quarterstaff, but it has only one end, so they even out, but its harder to put your weight behind a rapier than it is with a punch so it has a negative bonus to Power, but a rapier deals piercing damage, a quarterstaff deals bludgeoning.

combat might typically resolve thus: both opponents roll Speed. whoever rolls higher subtracts the opponents roll from their own and this gives the difference in Speed. a difference of 0 means both players have locked weapons and they roll power to win the weapon lock. a difference between 1 and 7 means the defending character managed to get their weapon up to block (more on this later). a difference between 8 and 11 means the defending character was too slow, and the offensive character can simply strike at them by rolling power. any difference greater than 12 allows the offensive opponent to choose to disarm the defending opponent (no damage dealt though).

this is all laid out on a small table, so it takes like one roll each (both rolled at the same time) a simple subtraction and a glance at a table.

ok, so if you are faster than your opponent, fast enough to strike them before they can block, you roll power, subtract their AC, and compare the result to a second table, which tells you how much you need to beat their AC by to deal different types of damage. damage is dealt to wherever the player chooses to attack initially.

if they manage to block, then their AC increases by their Power mod and the Power mod of their weapon. the logic behind this is that stronger characters are better at deflecting weapons and bigger and tougher weapons are better at defending too.

two rolls, two possible ACs depending on the Speed outcomes.

there are tons more options, such as dodging (with degrees of failure and success laid out in a simple table) and various other manoeuvres gained through class based abilities or general abilities.

Ranged Combat
ranged combat is more simple. it requires an Accuracy roll and the targets AC. Accuracy is d20 +Power mod +Agility mod +weapon mod. ranged weapons have an accuracy modifier that either increases or decreases your basic accuracy (throwing axes are less accurate than longbows). player rolls accuracy, GM looks at table to determine the difficulty of the shot within range increments and movement of target, adds the targets AC, and if the Accuracy check is higher, checks the damage table to see what damage is dealt.

Magic/Psionic Combat
magic/Psionic combat is a little more interesting. if a spellcaster/Psionic is facing normal opponents, they must either choose to engage them in melee or cast spells/use abilities from range, and there is really no chance for the spells/abilities to fail. but when oppossing another spellcaster/psionic, they duel. each opponent declares if they are going to cast or counter. if both cast, then both simply cast. if both counter, then they both do nothing that action. but if one casts and the other counters, they both roll spellcraft checks (Psi checks for Psionics) to try to get their spell off/counter the opponents spell. whoever wins the roll gets what they want.

also, all spells and abilities have a cost. this cost is used from the characters pool (be it spell points or Psi capacity), and also carries with it an additional cost of subdual damage. this subdual damage ignores AC and any other resistances against subdual damage, and can only be reduced/prevented with a constitution check, by subtracting this check from the subdual damage dealt. any left-over subdual damage is taken by the character. thus spellcasters and psionics must use their power wisely and ensure they can deal with the cost of using their abiltiies or risk falling unconscious.

magic and psionics are a bit more complex than this but i'm trying to be brief.

Learning Skills
skills are rolled as d20 +skill ranks +relevant attribute modifier, and are usually rolled against an opposing roll, though many skills roll against a static DC. the default threshold for learning skills is 3. this means that if you roll either 3 higher or 3 lower than the target number (DC or opposed roll), you learn one rank in that skill. this allows for characters to learn from mistakes and successes, and prevents them from learning from tasks too difficult for them to understand or too easy to be of use. certain classes (such as thieves) may have higher thresholds, like 4 or 5, and so learning skills is easier for them. characters can also pay for professional training to help them learn, by raising the threshold by 1 for every 10gp paid per try (or whatever).

Luck
characters with high influence scores not only find it easier to persuade other people, but also find that the world in general seems to react differently to them. i picture a characters' influence as kind of like a ripple in a pond, the more influence they have the more of a difference they can make. this breaks down mechanic-wise into 4 levels of luck, reached by raising influence progressively higher. level 1 luck can be used 4 times per day, and allows the player to re-roll any roll they make, and use the better of the two OR take a simple 50/50 chance of total success or total failure at using a skill check regardless of their skill or the difficulty of the task. level 2 luck can be used 3 times per day, and allows the player to alter any unknown value to their desire by a factor of 2 or 0.5. for example, if you fight an opponent with a longsword and a pouch, you can't make his longsword a rapier (it's already a known value) but you can make his pouch have either half the gold it would have had, or twice the gold (factors of 0.5 and 2 respectively). this could also work for the number of enemies on the other side of a door, or anything else they think of. level 3 luck can be used twice per day, and lets the player take total success regardless of the difficulty of the task (doesn't work for combat), or player can make another target creature or player fail/succeed at any task regardless of difficulty or skill. level 4 luck can be used once per day, and allows the player to totally fluke out and succeed at any one thing they try, no limitations, or they can choose to avoid any one lot of damage from any one source, and they can make these decisions retroactively up to one minute in the past per character level.

Setting
the setting for Eclipse is a world of my own creation, with many different cultures, with varying technological prowess. the main culture is The Kingdom, where magicians all belong to a highly organised and powerful organisation called The Academy, who are somewhat seperate from the Kingdom, but are also favourable towards them. there are 4 thieves guilds, each with their own claimed towns and cities, who do not look kindly on rogue thieves moving in on their territory. there are officially 7 religious orders, who spend a good deal of effort trying to manipulate and control events for their own design by using clerics as spies. there is one unofficial order who follow the nameless god of chaos, and they are the "big baddies" who attempt to bring destruction from the shadows. the era would be around the middle ages, though some cultures have developed gunpowder and others are yet to figure out how to work steel. in some cultures magic users are less-than-human and are slaves to be bought and used like tools, and in other cultures they are no more than loosely associated practitioners. orcs and serpent-people are the dominant species on the planet, with the serpent-people using the orcs as their armies. there's obviously tons more to the setting, but i think that's a passable overview.

Questions
Is there anything wrong with my skill learning mechanic? is 3 too large or too small as a base threshold? should characters learn more ranks for succeeding? or failing? or the same for both?

Is it fair to make Psionics and Spellcasters have to deal with subdual damage as a system of fatigue? should the risk for subdual damage be high? or low? i currently have spellcasters with a lower risk of subdual damage because their effort is in simply controlling and manipulating the weave of magic that is already there, whereas Psionics are generating a kind of magic weave with the power of their mind and their influence in the world. this leaves spellcasters as more powerful than psionics, but far rarer (everyone can become a psionic if they want). should i change this at all? is it ok to have an "imbalance" if it works with the world and ideals of the system?

right now there is a tradeoff between speed and power in melee combat, and stronger characters not only deal more damage, but are also harder to damage, while faster characters are harder to hit and more likely to hold the upper hand in a duel. i like this balance, and it achieves the sort of gritty "realistic" model of combat i wanted to achieve. but does anyone here think it needs more? or less? if so, how?

is there any more information that i should give to make objective appraisal of my mechanics easier to understand or give them a frame of reference?

any other comments/criticisms/questions?

There seems to be alot of dice rolling in your combat system. Each player has to toll once for Speed and then once for Power. Have you thought about rolling once and applying both modifiers to the same die Roll? This way everything happens at once and if you happen to equal Speed for a weapon lock then you already know how it will turn out with the Power rating.

The skill learning mechanic seem okay, but I wouldn't modify it per class. I would make it consistant for everyone and the only time it would be modified is if there was a trainer/teacher availible.

I'm not sure about the Luck mechanic. It has the potential of reshaping the reality of the game world a little too much for my taste. I've always seen luck as a way to effect the Character himself, not people around him. It's like giving anyone the PC comes up against Bad Luck twice a day. If I was playing in the system I would max out my influence first thing, becuase the way it's set up now it's definatly better to be lucky than good. That's just my opinion though.

Thanks for your post!

There seems to be alot of dice rolling in your combat system. Each player has to toll once for Speed and then once for Power. Have you thought about rolling once and applying both modifiers to the same die Roll? This way everything happens at once and if you happen to equal Speed for a weapon lock then you already know how it will turn out with the Power rating.

The skill learning mechanic seem okay, but I wouldn't modify it per class

I'm not sure about the Luck mechanic. It has the potential of reshaping the reality of the game world a little too much for my taste. I've always seen luck as a way to effect the Character himself, not people around him. It's like giving anyone the PC comes up against Bad Luck twice a day. If I was playing in the system I would max out my influence first thing, becuase the way it's set up now it's definatly better to be lucky than good. That's just my opinion though.

I like the Luck mechanic, very interesting, and the idea certainly fits with a number of other games developed here on the Forge which provide varying degrees of player empowerment. For example, Donjon (by our very own Clinton R. Nixon) uses a system that allows the player to turn successful rolls into facts about the world.

I can't really comment on the rest of the system, because it isn't my thing...or doesn't seem to be, since I'm looking at what appears to be D&D with mods. So, with that in mind, Ravien, could you tell me why I would want to play your game rather than just going with straight d20 / D&D? That is, what's your purpose in designing this game, and how do the mechanics support that?

Ravien wrote: Is there anything wrong with my skill learning mechanic? is 3 too large or too small as a base threshold? should characters learn more ranks for succeeding? or failing? or the same for both?

Is it fair to make Psionics and Spellcasters have to deal with subdual damage as a system of fatigue? should the risk for subdual damage be high? or low?

is it ok to have an "imbalance" if it works with the world and ideals of the system?

i like this balance, and it achieves the sort of gritty "realistic" model of combat i wanted to achieve. but does anyone here think it needs more? or less? if so, how?

So, with that in mind, Ravien, could you tell me why I would want to play your game rather than just going with straight d20 / D&D?

Without playing, I can't say. 3 seems a little low to me, but that all depends on how quickly you view advancement occuring. That brings up the question of how skill advancement integrates with the whole level system -- does level have any reflection on skill levels?

Sure...but that depends on the focus of the game and the way it is played. Is it more gamist? More sim-focused? Is mechanical effectiveness a concern regarding rewards? Given that it is modified D&D, I'd say that imbalance does not work, because of the way D&D is set up and functions

To tell you the truth, I'm a little unclear on how, exactly, combat works itself out. Can you give a more comprehensive
example (or two)? Thanks!

Thanks for posting that, Ravien! I'm going to mull that over a bit, along with your initial post, and see if I can get a grasp of the way it works (my quick read-through is just not clarifying it for me).

well, hopefully the combat examples i gave weren't too confusing... they seem simple enough to me. but then again, i made the system!

so anyways i am making progress on my pdf. i'm up to about 50 pages now, and i have to say that typing up spell lists is a real huge job. i've done all the character creation part, all the psionic powers, weapons, armor (not general equipment yet though), and all that stuff. big job. more typing in this one pdf than i've done in all my years at uni.

one of the things i may need help with though, is my playable species. of the many creatures that live in my setting, only five are playable. i was wondering if this is enough, or are people likely to want more than five. to help put some context to that question, here is a very simplified rundown of the five species i have so far:

human. duh! always a human. many cultures, kingdoms, blah blah blah

humans gain experience at 110% the normal rate, get more skill points at char creation, and get more abilities as they level. exciting huh.

elyrial (el-EYE-ree-AHL): elyrials are descendants of teh ancient druids, who are magical creatures that are the guardians of nature (very powerful). when humans first began spreading, a small group of druids (typical teenagers!) were inspired to question devoting their life to the cause of nature, when these humans were doing so well by using nature. so they left the druids and tried to emulate the humans, and compete with them. being the druids that they were though, when they abandoned nature they began losing the powers that nature granted them. they lost their abilities to shapeshift, control the weather and other animals, meld with the elements, and many other powers, and they lost their immortality. but proud and stubborn, they continued to try to forge their own path. unfortunately, their breeding cycle was too long, and the humans grew too fast. so in the end, they tried to compromise, by living at one with nature, but still being their own speciies with their own destinies. humans and elyrials live seperately, but each reveres the other for their accomplishments so it is a mutually beneficial relationship. the humans often call the elyrials "elves" because it is easier to say.

they have retained some aspects of their druidic heritage, namely their cat-like ears and tails, ability to camouflage their skin and hair and fur (like a cameleon), they never take falling damage (unless they are unconscious), and have bonuses their sneak and hide and listen skills. because of their longevity and the nature of their beings, they gain experience at 90% the normal rate.

keresai (keh-reh-SEYE): keresin are even more ancient than the elyrials, though their ancestor species is not as ancient as the druids. both the keresin and the sargni are descendant from the same ancestor, who is now all but forgotten. they were the first species to exhibit the ability to weave magic, and very quickly began selective breeding to create their ideal "pure" species. this fact, and the fact that the keresin have incredibly stunted emotional capacity led the the sargni to war with them, and both species have hated each other for as long as they can remember. the keresin have very little creativity or emotional drives beyond some base emotions like hate, fear, and curiosity. their minds are alien to the other species, because they do not know the meaning of pleasure or humor, and they are always curious and trying to learn things, but without much restraint on how they go about things (like guilt or empathy). they use the ka'tarrh as slaves because they can and they see themselves as superior to them, and live in densely populated centres, where no keresai goes without because of the fact that they have so many slaves to do everything for them. they breed according to seasonal cycles, without lust nor passion, and the females lay their eggs in huge community nests, where they are left to fend for themselves. their hate is usually reserved for the sargn, and their curiosity fuels their interactions with the humans and elyrials, though neither of them are too keen on forming any sort of relationship with the keresin. attempting to comunicate with a keresin through anything other than logical reasoning is most often futile. they do not chat about the weather.

their skin is smooth and shiny scales of any colour or pattern, and their physiques are slender and graceful. they are often described as "snake-like" in appearance and movement. they have infravision (ability to see heat), are far more likely to be born able to weave magic than any other species, and have other things i can't remember.

sargn (SAR-ehn): sargni are also descendants from the same lineage as the keresin, but the two species coulnd't be more different. where the keresin are cold and emotionally void, the sargn are a very emotionally focused people. they form small communities and deep relationships with each other. where the keresin treat breeding as an informal formality, the sargni are very selective and breed out of love. where the keresin are driven by curiosity, the sargni are content with what they have. they do not form many relationships with other species, simply for wariness of being abused (as they have seen from humans many times). they focus their lives on the pursuit of creativity and expression, and their music is often commented on as being the best in the world.

the sargni are much larger than the other species (though only slightly larger than the ka'tarrh), being around 11, to 12 feet tall. they are very muscular and strong, being forged as warriors from their aeons of war with the keresin. their skin is thick, hard and scaly, and can be any colour or pattern. as with the keresin, both male and females of the sargni are virtually indistinguishable to the human eye. they have many strength and AC bonuses, and gain experience at 80% the normal rate.

ka'tarrh (kah-TARH): the ka'tarrh are a chaotic species. they are fueled by a need to satisfy base desires. in terms of numbers they are by far the dominant species in the world, but fortunately for the other species, they are far from the brightest or most organised. they are usually slaves and military for the keresin, and this not only benefits the keresin directly, but also benefits the humans and elyrials indirectly in that the keresin have little interest in attacking them, thus they effectively pre-occupy the ka'tarrh by mkaing them slaves. among other ka'tarrh, individuals are constantly vyeing for power or possessions, and their sexual selection consists of "only the strong survive", in that breeding for any ka'tarrh, male or female, is a matter of finding an ideally strong mate, considering whether they are capable of overpowering this mate, and then forceably mating with them. humans would consider this rape, but ka'tarrh have neither the emotional capacity to feel bothered by this nor the need to, as this is their way of life. their leaders (when they are not keresin) are always the strongest or otherwise most powerful (magic, comparitive tactical genius) but never remain for long before another one takes over. thus, instead of having the brains to use their numbers to their advantage, most of their energy is spent on in-fighting.

their physical appearance varies as much as a humans' does, in terms of height, weight, skin color and all that, but their skin is coloured differently to humans, taking shades of blues and greys, greens and deep oranges, and a huge range of other colours. they usually have horns or spikes on their heads, shoulders or backs, and even elbows knees and forearms, and the arrangement, size, and colour of these varies as much as everything else about them. they usually stand around 10 foot tall, and gain one extra ability point per level.

questions
is this not a wide enough variety of species?

right now humans are kind of under the keresin and the ka'tarrh in terms of dominance over the world, does this present a problem for a players' suspension of disbelief?

there are other humanoid species in the world, namely the malenym (mah-leh-NIM), but they are largely elementally focused and might be too powerful as playable characters... should i try to make them playable anyway?

any comments or suggestions or criticisms?

Ravien,

Sorry about the wait in getting back to you, I've been offline for a bit with PC problems.

Unfortunately, I'm still confused. The system looks like it works, but I'm just not getting where some of the results you're declaring in the battles are coming from. I've read the examples over a couple times and am still left scratching my head at certain points saying, "Alright, if you say so."

I'm assuming there's tables and charts that you have access to which I don't that makes it all make more sense?

(Gah...sorry my feedback isn't more specific.)

I'm curious about how chargen works. One thing that strikes me right off (and forgive me if I've missed something) but what's the difference between two characters one with a 24 stat, and one with a 25. From the above, they both provide a +12 mod. So what do the raw stats do?

A lot of games coming from the d20 tradition keep this odd artifact from D&D - having a primary stat with a derived mod that has meaning while the primary does not. IOW, is there something that's preventing you from just using the mod as the stat itself? That is, why can't my character just have a +12 stat instead of a 24? And +0 is the average ability?

There may well be a reason, but if so, I can't see it yet.

To address your question about magic and "subdual" damage (that's pretty archaic, couldn't you call it pain or something?), the first question is to ask if you are concerned with power balance or not, and why. The answer to your question depends heavily on how you answer this question.

Mike

greyorm: yes, there are 5 tables that i have access to that you don't, because i can't post tables. they all fit on one page: the "GM page". it has conflict resolution tables for melee duelling (attack and defend as the tides of the battle turn), melee heedless (both parties attack praying that they are fast enough to avoid the opponents blow at the same time), the damage table, the accuracy DC table (target distance by target movement to subtract from the accuracy roll, making the shot harder/easier), and finally the dodge resolution table (are you fast enough to get inside their defense and stab them in the armpit? or were you too slow and got the sharp end of their sword?).

as for what is actually happening during combat, like whether one character is swinging high, if you choose to defend, if you want to cleave them in two with an overhead strike, or whatever, that is all pure narration. players say "i'm gonna stab this guy in the eye" and i say "roll your attack". at the same time i roll the defense for the opponent, and if hte player succeeds, the description of their action has all the info i need: aiming for the head, so i know where to look on the damage table, and bingo, i say "your dagger punches through this guys eye with a sickening squelch, quickly cut off by his screams as he claws away at your dagger".

i'm slowly getting closer to having the play-test pdf ready (78 pages so far, with plenty more to go!, 54,500 words!. not much i know, but i've certainly never typed anything so big before), and hopefully the section explaining combat in that is clearer than what i've been able to give here, especially because it has the tables and full descriptions of everything used.


mike: sure, i should have explained that. the reason i have used attributes with a derived mod, is to acheive the "law of diminishing returns". attributes from 10 to 20 increase on a 1:1 ratio. at 10 your mod is 0, and at 20 your mod is 10. from 21 to 30, your attributes increase at a 2:1 ratio, so at 21 your mod is 11, and at 30 your mod is 15. from 31 onwards (there really is no upper limit, but i'm treating 100 like a score VERY few will ever reach), attributes increase at a 3:1 ratio. at 31 your mod is 15, but at 50 your mod is 22. plus i do use the actual attribute of constitution for the purposes of determining a character's base AC.

i wanted to use the diminishing returns for a few reasons, but mostly i like it cos it means that players of lower levels can accelerate quickly, and then they are faced with a choice: do i spend an attribute point on this important attribute, even though i won't see any immediate result until next level? or do i spend it on this other attribute which comes in handy now and then, but in doing so potentially putting myself at a disadvantage against others of my class? plus as i've been creating characters with it and making them different levels, i've noticed that it just feels right.

and sure i could call subdual damage 'pain'. i could call it nausea, or fatigue, or sleepiness, or 'ouchies'. i could call it anything you want. find and replace is an awesome feature in MSWord! but its just a name. and i think if i were to rename it (i've considered it a few times myself), i'd probably call it fatigue, because that's what it most closely represents. spellcasters don't feel pain when they cast, they get worn out.

now to your question: is the threat of subdual damage there for balance? no, not really. spellcasters are fantastically powerful so i'm not really concerned about balance. what i am concerned about though, are two things: one, making my system parallel my own concepts of magic, and in my mind, magic should allow freedom and power, but the use of it is tiring. this also opens up a whole load of tactics to use as a spellcaster, and personally, i feel that without the threat of subdual damage (remembering that you roll to avoid it, and so have the potential to not take any at all), magic would be kinda bland and taken for granted. there really is no chance of a spell failing unless it is countered, so if magic didn't have the repurcussion of tiring the caster, one spellcaster would barely yawn after destroying an entire army and city fortress.

the second reason is closely tied into the first, and i even partially explained it, and that is a reason that has been addressed by many in a topic on "unlimited magic" here at the forge. ie: without a limit, magic is not special. it loses its wonder factor, and all possible tactical use is really destroyed.


but i guess now is as good a time as any to clarify a few things which have been brought to my attention as "unquestioned assumptions". for starters, let me just say that there is not one aspect that i have included in eclipse that has not undergone rigourous testing and questioning in my mind.

a d20 dice: why? why not 3d6? or any number of other die? sure, multiple die give a normal distribution, but thats about it as far as i can see for their advantages. the advantages of using a d20? DANGER! every roll you make there is a 1 in 20 chance of rolling any given number, and thus the outcome is not at all predictable. with 3d6, you know that more often than not, you'll roll 11 or 12. also, a d20 is much faster to read the result. i like these things, and i feel that using any other method of rolling die would make combat more predictable and make mistakes more common when adding up die for the 50th time that night.

classes: why? why not classless? sure, classless offers total freedom. but that's not what i want. in "real life", no-one has total freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want. they have to really work for it, and doing so nearly always involves neglecting some aspect of your life. i want spellcasters to be special and unique, classless does not allow this easily. and whislt everyone in my world has the potential to become a psionic, not everyone devotes their lives to the difficult training and hardships required to harness that power. classes add something to a game, and even more importantly, they avoid homogeneity, which is something i try to steer clear of.

skills: why? because they make sense and give players options. some systems think skills are so important that everything becomes a skill. i've yet to see a skill-less system that isn't bland.

abilities (feats if you will): i like them. they are one more step to customising your character and making them really stand out, and i can't get enough of ways to make my characters unique. if i can make something where players think "damn, i don't know which one to choose because they are all so good". then i have done my job.

levels: something to work towards. a way to easily distinguish between a good character and an old character. something to give players a sense of achievement, in terms of incremental goals. sure, sense of achievement comes from many areas in my system, but another one sure doesn't hurt. plus they are useful for making character progression predictable so i can better accomodate for their potentials, and know what they can handle without extensive reading of their character sheets.

non-human playable species (races, whatever): it's a fantasy world. nuff said.

really i can't think of anything else that is similar to other systems i've seen, and even these things which i have used, i have modified strongly to my liking.

but i'll think some more on the naming of "subdual damage", perhaps i will call it fatigue. but pain really doesn't fit with how it is used.

if anyone has any more questions or comments, i'd be more than happy to accomodate them.

Ravien wrote: mike: sure, i should have explained that. the reason i have used attributes with a derived mod, is to acheive the "law of diminishing returns". attributes from 10 to 20 increase on a 1:1 ratio. at 10 your mod is 0, and at 20 your mod is 10. from 21 to 30, your attributes increase at a 2:1 ratio, so at 21 your mod is 11, and at 30 your mod is 15. from 31 onwards (there really is no upper limit, but i'm treating 100 like a score VERY few will ever reach), attributes increase at a 3:1 ratio. at 31 your mod is 15, but at 50 your mod is 22.

now to your question: is the threat of subdual damage there for balance? no, not really.

the second reason is closely tied into the first, and i even partially explained it, and that is a reason that has been addressed by many in a topic on "unlimited magic" here at the forge. ie: without a limit, magic is not special. it loses its wonder factor, and all possible tactical use is really destroyed.

for starters, let me just say that there is not one aspect that i have included in eclipse that has not undergone rigourous testing and questioning in my mind.

a d20 dice: why? why not 3d6? or any number of other die? sure, multiple die give a normal distribution, but thats about it as far as i can see for their advantages. the advantages of using a d20? DANGER!

classes: why? why not classless? sure, classless offers total freedom. but that's not what i want. in "real life", no-one has total freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

skills: why? because they make sense and give players options. some systems think skills are so important that everything becomes a skill. i've yet to see a skill-less system that isn't bland.

levels: something to work towards. a way to easily distinguish between a good character and an old character. something to give players a sense of achievement, in terms of incremental goals. sure, sense of achievement comes from many areas in my system, but another one sure doesn't hurt. plus they are useful for making character progression predictable so i can better accomodate for their potentials, and know what they can handle without extensive reading of their character sheets.

non-human playable species (races, whatever): it's a fantasy world. nuff said.

mike: thanks for your reply, i enjoyed reading your comments.

character creation looks a little like this: roll 4d4+2 per attribute (range of 6-18, average=12), then swap any two with any other two. conceptually, this works to loosely parallel being born without any control over what you will be like, but then as the years go by and you grow up you can devote your time to improving some areas and perhaps neglecting others. in my many trials i've found that there is a certain agreeable amount of min/maxing and it's rather hard to roll a crappy character. i understand i could have just given X number of points to be distributed, but i personally don't like that idea, not least because it can create conceptually "unrealistic" characters.

you get X skill points to spend on skills, where X=double your crystal score (crystal is the attribute for learning, among other things).

of course there are plenty of other aspects to character creation but thats really the mechanical side, which i think is what you were after.

progression goes a little like this: whenever you roll a natural 20, you gain 1 attribute point on the attribute that the roll used (every roll made uses at least one attribute's modifier). this, along with skills being learnt through use, gives non-level based progression. as for levelling up, different classes get different things, but all get either 4 or 5 attribute points per level (helpful if you never roll a natural 20 :D ). i'd be interested in how one might factor diminishing returns into attributes with a simpler method than a table that tells you what attribute gives what modifier. i don't doubt it could be done, but i can't see how it could be simpler.

AC is armor class yes. technically, it might be better served by calling it 'hardness', or 'TS' (tensile strength), because what it measures is the physical resistance that things (like armor and bodies) have to being cut, bent, dented, or otherwise maltreated, as opposed to some (more) abstract concept of how hard it is to hit somewhere soft amidst armor, moving etc. but i personally feel that the benefit of sticking with a familiar term outweighs the benefit of simply making up a new acronym for the sake of making up a new acronym.

One exception isn't usually a good idea. So why not just base the AC mod on the mod for con (or what I think the stat should be)? Much simpler, and you get the diminishing returns again, which is probably beneficial.

Ravien wrote: mike: thanks for your reply, i enjoyed reading your comments.

of course there are plenty of other aspects to character creation but thats really the mechanical side, which i think is what you were after.

progression goes a little like this: whenever you roll a natural 20, you gain 1 attribute point on the attribute that the roll used (every roll made uses at least one attribute's modifier). this, along with skills being learnt through use, gives non-level based progression. as for levelling up, different classes get different things, but all get either 4 or 5 attribute points per level (helpful if you never roll a natural 20 :D ). i'd be interested in how one might factor diminishing returns into attributes with a simpler method than a table that tells you what attribute gives what modifier. i don't doubt it could be done, but i can't see how it could be simpler.

AC is armor class yes. technically, it might be better served by calling it 'hardness', or 'TS' (tensile strength), because what it measures is the physical resistance that things (like armor and bodies) have to being cut, bent, dented, or otherwise maltreated, as opposed to some (more) abstract concept of how hard it is to hit somewhere soft amidst armor, moving etc. but i personally feel that the benefit of sticking with a familiar term outweighs the benefit of simply making up a new acronym for the sake of making up a new acronym.

and now that i think about it, i probably don't need it anymore (it was a concept adapted to fit with an early magic mechanic which no longer exists). so thanks for bringing it up! cos now i can remove it.

also, i have used the trusty "find + replace" feature that is so handy in large documents to turn 'subdual damage' into 'fatigue'. it fits better i think, and i agree that it is a vast improvement. personally, i don't really care how many times a name has been used, so long as the meaning fits and is intuitive.

you have not insulted me at all by pointing to those two essays, i have read them both. i understand full well that i am not exactly 'breaking new ground' here, nor am i likely to ever do so, thus i am not insulted that others agree! as for something to make it unique, in terms of raw mechanics, i doubt there is much.

i can't say my particular take on combat resolution is revolutionary, but i honestly have never seen anything so simple that deals with the same concepts before. no, TROS is not even in the same ballpark of simplicity (honestly, no offence to those who love TROS, i think it's quite a stand-out system, with many great ideas, but it just isn't my thing).

as for the heartbreaker label... well, it's already been said, and thus it will never leave. eclipse is a heartbreaker because that is how it is seen. there's nothing i can do to remove that label, but honestly, i don't believe it deserves it until at least one other person has gone through the completed thing with at least a half-arsed attempt at an open mind :D

oh, and i really don't have the money to buy bookcases of systems to ensure mine is unique/problem free. to do so would be great, but it's beyond my abilities.

as for magic and fatigue, unfortunately, given the philosophical concepts and 'how the universe works' of Eclipse, fatigue is really the only thing that makes sense as a cost. this is probably because i drew my inspiration from both Magician and The Wheel of Time. as a side note, whilst a mechanic can do a great job of conveying the 'wonder' of magic, i think that 'image' or 'social status' can do so at least as well. ie: Great Ones in Magician, who are outside the law, and who reside in The Academy, working for the good of the empire, and Aes Sedai, who are similarly isolated and held in wonderment and fear for their social status.

Let it be known that this is my first system ever! I am not a professional. i do not claim to be. i am only 22. when people pontificate about the ramifications for D&D after 2E, i nod and walk away. when people mention 16 systems with full references including historical 'special editions', i stay out of the conversation. does this all mean that i can't make a decent system? IMHO not at all.

my target audience are people who feel that what characters do in my game is the sort of thing they themselves would like to do. so to answer both questions, characters in Eclipse live in a world where magic is rare, but at it's peak. not really 'high magic', because it is rare, but it is certainly powerful. this has an inevitable impact on society and cultures.

characters can really do an aweful lot of things, but i guess one thing that won't really be happening too often is 'dungeon crawling'. that's a good way to get dead fast. plus dungeons don't exist. they aren't at all necessary. why would any sane person build a dungeon?

anyways, i envision characters integrating with their world. juggling responsibilities to their social groups (temple orders, guilds, nobility, other organisations) with their own desires and responsibilities to friends and party members. it's really hard to explain, not because i don't know, but because of the concepts and possibilities involved.

here is where my players come in (though they know nothing of the previous paragraph except about the war).

one of my players was a thief, so he was one of 3 enlisted to 'obtain' the prince. one of my players was a cleric, and she was ordered to serve as a mercenary guard of a travelling caravan (the caravan of the prince, but she did not know this because it is safer that the prince travel 'undercover', and she is not high enough in her order to be told who she was guarding and why). the third player in my group is a mage, who was simply going where her master told her to go, and her master was also travelling with this caravan, as he was one of the princes boyhood teachers.

(evil order who worship The Nameless)

basically, i want characters who become heroes of their world, by simply doing what they feel is the right thing to do, and somehow managing to stay alive. i love the idea of characters who don't feel like heroes while they play, but do feel like heroes in retrospect. i plan on campaigns being as intricate and involving as a good novel. i don't see eclipse being used for one-session adventures, or parties who fulfill isolated quests. it's more for plots overlayed with other plots and interwoven with still more plots, where they might stumble across something only to realise its significance later.

i didn't design eclipse to make games that run this way, i designed it to allow them to. i feel there is a distinct difference.

perhaps some other system could achieve this simple goal, perhaps even better. but just because there are other ways to travel from A to B, some even faster or safer, i'd still choose to travel in a Lamborghini Murcielago. not because of the wheels, or the leather interior, or the engine, or even the chassis, but because of the whole package that is the car. with luck, maybe that metaphor might explain how i feel about eclipse, and who might be my target audience.

finally, if an elyrial burnt down a forest, then there may very well be an acceptable reason for that, but whilst i can't (don't want to) make it a mechanic, there would definately be repurcussions for that elyrial, both in the immediate future (where will that fire spread, what will its total effects be?) and in the longer term (reputation, vengeance against him/her, family honour/shame etc.). whilst my "races" have cultures and junk, they all still have free will and individuality. and in my opinion, sometimes it's the oddballs that make for the best characters. an intelligent, charming, and sophisticated ka'tarrh would be a laugh!

P.S. my deepest apologies for the lengthiness of my posts. i'm used to posting in debates and discussion forums and writing essays on psychology and philosophy, so i fear "concise" is usually a boundary that i must struggle to fit into.

I'm gonna spare you the "you should be doing X instead" talk, but in substance, if not necessarily in style I'd agree with previous recommendations in that direction.

Anyway, concerning your "attribute progression problem". For one, another common approach is having players roll on increases (where a roll costs a certain number of EXP) and give them an increase when they roll over their current stat. That gives you the diminishing returns through probabilities (and through the fact, that players don't want to waste resources). Unfortunately this creates another problem: more uniform characters as the risk gets unattractive for players fast beyond the 50 percent chance at 10). (Offering a choice between fixed costs and a dice throw won't help, as it will be pretty obvious which option is more attractive.)
However, the real danger behind "learning by rolling" (I can't remember the technical term right now) is that it rewards rolling lots of dice. Despite its intuitive appeal, both in terms of "realism" and ease of use, in practice it has been found, that the reward mechanism tends to dominate player's behaviour (yes, we're all just rats, pressing buttons for food ;). At least that's the common experience reported from all system which use such a method. If – as you seem to be planning – the "learning by rolling" mechanism has the potential to outweigh normal levelling that effect is going to be even more pronounced.
(Apart from that, certain activities which are either (a) rarely performed or (b) rarely rolled on (e.g. social stuff) and consequently the PCs skilled in them tend to get screwed by the system.)
The extreme of this "perversion-of-play-through-system" is the magic user, who wastes enough spells in the evening to learn something (or, in your case, at least have a chance to roll a natural 20) and still be at his full power in the morning. *shudder*

montag wrote: However, the real danger behind "learning by rolling" (I can't remember the technical term right now) is that it rewards rolling lots of dice.

It's the "directed" bonuses for the natural 20 that are requiring ths, however. That is, if you didn't have that, then you could just check the chart for cost to increase a mod when leveling up (going from +12 to +13 costs two, for instance). And while we're at it, this is really going to benefit lucky players. I mean, some player will roll a bunch of 20's before another rolls one - given the range on your abilities, won't this tend to throw off your balance for levels? I mean, lets say I typically make 100 rolls between levels. That averages 5 attribute increases between levels. Some player is going to get 8, however, and another only 2. The difference is more than a level's worth of ability points.

However, the real danger behind "learning by rolling" (I can't remember the technical term right now) is that it rewards rolling lots of dice. Despite its intuitive appeal, both in terms of "realism" and ease of use, in practice it has been found, that the reward mechanism tends to dominate player's behaviour (yes, we're all just rats, pressing buttons for food ;). At least that's the common experience reported from all system which use such a method. If – as you seem to be planning – the "learning by rolling" mechanism has the potential to outweigh normal levelling that effect is going to be even more pronounced.
(Apart from that, certain activities which are either (a) rarely performed or (b) rarely rolled on (e.g. social stuff) and consequently the PCs skilled in them tend to get screwed by the system.)

It's [AC] only more familiar to players who haven't played anything but D&D. And that's a substantial group, no doubt, but represents probably less than a quarter of all RPG gamers. Even though the plurality of RPG players play D&D, most have played other games at least once. In any case, if you name it well, the name will convey what it means, and will better set the feel for what the stat does. I mean, if you called it Toughness or something, people would get the idea.

Again, not to be insulting, but your response above is what every heartbreaker designer posts. "No d20-like game is as simple as mine". Well, I haven't seen the totality of your game, but let me assure you that there are literally dozens of games with mechanics so similar to yours that it's frightening.

Here's a list of a couple hundred (no, I'm not exaggerating) free rpgs that focus on fantasy, many of them in precisely the way that you do.

*snip*

Add these to the list in the Heartbreaker essay, many of which sound very much like what you're proposing. If you just peruse a few, I think that you'll see that there are some which are just as simple as your system, if not simpler. Again, I've yet to see your system in it's entirity, but if it bears any resemblance to the D20 system (d20 + attribute + skill vs TN), then it's already been done by someone. Lots of someones.

Well, that's the thing, I don't think it needs to be a heartbreaker, you can alter the design enough at this point to avoid that monicker. More importantly, I think you can better achieve your design goals by looking beyond d20 for inspiration.

OTOH, it's been said that sometimes the best way to get into design is to make a heartbreaker. The reason there are so many is because it's the way that half of designers start designing - myself for example. All I'm trying to do here is give you the option to skip that step if you like. If you feel the design is too far complete, or that you just want to finish it as is, I understand.

I completely agree. So in that case, I'd put in mechanics to represent this effect. If you want a game to make a statement of some sort regarding these sorts of themes, then you have to make it part of the rules somehow. See the essay in the articles section called "System Does Matter."

Neat set up. I'm dissapointed that I can't play the sorcerer, his enemies, the royalty, etc. Why aren't they available as characters? They seem to be what the plot is all about.

Hmmm. OK, I get it, the PCs do whatever they're told to do by somebody that the GM creates in order to have the plot move along smoothly. Is that it?

All sounds pretty interesting, but there are two problems. First, where does all this setting and plot come from? That is, are you going to provide your setting that you've enumerated in your post to the GM, or does he have to make his own?

What does your system do to cause the players to behave like heroes that D20 does not do?

Because, secondly, your setting sounds a lot like every other setting ever made for a fantasy game. You've got a Dark Lord (TM), you have the powers who want to see him destroyed, you have the desperate monarchs who will do whatever desperate act it takes to prevent the dark lord or the war around him from destroying their kingdoms. You have the mages bargaining from their vantage, you have secret orders of priests in service to their own orders and to secular powers, you have a section of Thieve's World in the game... Have you seen Midnight? The D20 game that intentionally emulates LOTR?

This alone isn't a problem, really. That is, with the right system, you could have people playing your setting against your dark lord...but there's another problem which is making this sort of play fun. You've heard the term "railroading?" What are your feelings on it?

The question is, what of your system promotes the repercussions that you talk about? More to the point, why won't players just take an elyrial for their Kewlness factor, and just ignore the culture? What about the system promotes the idea of race as somthing more than just a different set of effectiveness modifiers?

The extreme of this "perversion-of-play-through-system" is the magic user, who wastes enough spells in the evening to learn something (or, in your case, at least have a chance to roll a natural 20) and still be at his full power in the morning. *shudder*

to do that in eclipse would require casting of weak spells, or the mage would knock themselves unconscious real quick. but spellcasters are at their full power most of the time. the only limits are fatigue and their flow pool, which regenerates at 2 points per round. they use flow to cast, and fatigue comes from how much flow they use. more powerful spell=more flow=more fatigue. there is no "wasting" of spells, more just gratuitous use. in Eclipse, some cultures frown on this, others encourage this.

What is it that you'd like to see from us?

exactly the sorts of things i've seen so far! questions, comments, suggestions... they all help me get a better understanding of what is expected, what i am "up against", and how i might make my system better.

but in summary from this post alone, i would very much appreciate ideas on the following things:
what i should call "AC" instead?
if limiting attribute growth to 1 point per attribute per week would perhaps help the situation?
any suggestions for solid non-level based progression that also doesn't rely on rolling? (i will read through those 6 games, so i may find an answer in one of them...)
any concepts for how a mechanic might capture the social status of a mage in an effective and satisfying way?

Ravien wrote: hmmmm, both good points. i'm not particularly concerned about 'level balance', because i'm not particularly concerned about 'class balance' either. but... i definately see how this might be 'abused' by 'powergamers'. like players deciding to bash everything with their swords just so they can roll enough 20's to increase their power. this in itself is problematic in terms of destroying the immersion in the game, but worse, i think that such activity detracts from the enjoyment of other non-powergamer players.

ok, here's an idea... what if i limited how much an attribute could be raised by rolling to 1 per week (in-game time of course). not only would that help to replicate the limits of human growth (if i exercise for a day, i don't turn into arnold schawarzeneggar), but it might also help to encourage players to use all of their attributes in some way to increase the overall number of attribute points they gain.

also, with regards to social stats not be used alot, i'm not sure that really applies to Eclipse.

when a characters Ego score is double its initial value, they are in love with you (conversely, when it is 0 they loath you). my only problem with what i have for this so far is the fact that it requires a fair amount of book-keeping, either for the players or the GM, in keeping track of how some particular NPC feels towards a particular party. i'm hesitant to add one more detail simply because of this fact, and that is that if an NPC loaths you, they probably hate your friends as well, and if an NPC loves you, they probably won't hate your friends. this last part i am content to leave out simply because of the hassle of keeping track of it.

so yeah, social attributes get used a bit too. the trick is deciding how to develop your character, and the trick for me is not putting too many barriers in place to prevent you from doing what you want, yet still making any rewards "worth it".

toughness is ok, but i feel that it conveys too much "human" aspect. a quick look at dictionary.com gave me the following terms that might be acceptable: tensile strength (too technical i think), resistance (ok i guess, but too general. perhaps Physical Resistance?), impenetrability (too absolute, too hard to say), and solidity (implies liquidity is possible). i dunno, i guess that you have a point, that the names i choose will reflect on the view of my system whether i like it or not, so i can see how simply using the acronym "AC" will be seen as a downfall.

ok, so i want all terms that i use to be intuitive and easy to use. so how about instead of "AC", i use one of the following: Tensile Strength (TS), Physical Resistance (PR), Toughness (T), or Armor Toughness/Bodily Toughness (AT/BT)? i'm open to any opinions about which to use, or any other suggestions i haven't thought of.

of course, but i wasn't implying that my system is in any way the simplest around. that really wasn't my goal. to achieve that sort of simplicity, i would have to settle for more abstraction than i am willing to use. instead, i meant that *to my knowledge* (i make no claims that my knowledge is in any way vast), i've not seen "realistic" (i understand the problems with that term) damage based duelling systems as intuitive (to me at least) as mine.

both TROS and Eclipse use "simultaneous" combat, where every action is met with an opposing action, which are both played at the same time.

however, i have done away with initiative, as i don't believe it to be necessary.

also, both TROS and Eclipse impose penalties to rolls for being wounded.

finally, combat in both systems is very deadly and very fast.

i might mention right now that when i came up with my system, i had never known it to be done before. in fact (i'm not kidding), i thought that independantly designed systems were incredibly rare (you can laugh if you want, even i think it's funny now).

well, obviously i would love for Eclipse to avoid being a heartbreaker, but at the same time, i'm not creating the world's greatest rpg before breakfast.

i'm not a fan of multiple die systems, mainly because counting up 15 die for powerful characters slows things down and increases the chances for mistakes. some dice +attribute mod +skill seems to be the only way i can avoid multiple die, and still factor for weak but skilled characters and strong but clumsy characters. that dice might as well be a d20 (as opposed to a d10 or d%).

i guess i could certainly implement some mechanic similar to the "social combat" Ego, that represents either your reputation in your organisation, or your personal commitment to them (or an interaction between both), but i think it is a lot of book-keeping for the players. also, i feel that such a thing is more comprehensively and easily controlled with qualitative setting-based rules. ie: "you are above the law, but this power comes from the fact you work for the betterment of our nation". or "you are feared and respected, but only because you are mysterious and powerful, and use your power to help society. lose your mystery, lose fear, attack society, lose respect".

glad you like it :D technically, you COULD play the sorcerer or whoever, but then you have the whole "i know what i'm going to do thing" because it's already explained in the setting.

also, even if you were to play such a powerful protagonist, there would always be someone/thing that came before you and did something else important. these characters are just some of those people.

but this isn't to say that my characters won't become powerful protagonists. far from it. whilst they don't know it yet, eventually (somehow) they will discover a "tomb"

so yeah, certainly not short on protagonistic potential, and in the end, the party definately takes centre stage as to "what the plot is all about" (even if they don't go anywhere near where i hope they'll go).

but there's no reason any character MUST do what their organisations tell them to, just like in real life there's no reason i MUST submit my essays in on time, or stick to the word limit, or write about what i'm supposed to. but one day, i'll be telling people to write things for me, and one day the players will be the ones giving the orders.

yeah, i'm including the setting with the game. most concepts within the game (other than how to swing a sword) depend on the setting, like gods and clerical orders, how magic and psionic powers work, the organisations that help to define characters, and all that junk. the particular campaign i am running though, with the time travel and stuff, will only be included as far as a brief mention of the existence of the device and where it might be. i don't want to write the story for the GM, just give them what's needed to streamline plots.

What does your system do to cause the players to behave like heroes that D20 does not do?

if, by d20, you refer to the entire range of d20 systems and settings, then i can't really be qualified to answer that question because i haven't read even half of them. but i guess i could ask how does d20 cause players to behave like heroes? IMHO, the only thing it does is offer options, and give a setting that is conducive to exploring those options. Eclipse does this. so does every system to my knowledge. but perhaps i am misunderstanding your question.

but now that you've mentioned it, i do think it's interesting that all fantasy i have ever read really boils down to those same premises, even though they do have different takes on each of the premises. it probably fits in with religious concepts and basic human nature. but i still enjoy them for what they are.

on one hand i think a great GM can plan a rich story, and make the players believe that not only are they a part of this story, but that they are truly driving it, almost like some uber-author (or God...).

on the other hand, what tends to happen with my sessions is that i plan for about the first hour or so of play, and then wing it as the players do what they want, and i develop the story ad lib, drawing on my broad concepts of what's going on in the world.

do you mean: "what about my system limits the options open to players to ensure that they don't ignore culture?" or do you mean "what mechanics are in place that keep track of 'bad' things characters do to help bring about repurcussions?". besides culture, history, physical characteristics, social norms, generalized personalities, and effectiveness values: what else CAN define a race? and perhaps more importantly, why would i need it?

What is it that you'd like to see from us?

any suggestions for solid non-level based progression that also doesn't rely on rolling? (i will read through those 6 games, so i may find an answer in one of them...)

To address this generally, have you read that essay yet (System Does Matter)? Because there's a general principle that's important here. Basically, there are no "powergamers" just players who are playing games that promote powergaming. That is, sans incentive to play this way, there are no powergamers. Designing your game to eliminate abuse is going at things backwards. If you're game is subject to "abuse", that means it promotes a sort of play that you don't want it to promote - the system causes the behavior. So, don't worry about combating "abuse" just make a game that will promote what you want in the first place.

For instance, you say that you're not concerned with balance. And, assuming that means what I think it does, that may be a step in the right direction. On the other hand, it's hard to know, because we really don't know what you're trying to do with this game. Moreover, there are some things that you've done that seem at odds with the typical sorts of goals that discarding balance might achieve.

So, if you can backtrack on some of these things and tell us why you're not concerned with balance, rather, what you're trying to support that balance would get in the way of, then we can more cogently respond to your questions.

I like the system in general. How does it require any more record keeping than combat? I mean, do you have modifiers in combat? If the character is on ice, would you subtract something from their roll? If so, then why can't this just be applied to social conflicts? The GM notes that NPC A is an enemy of PC B, who is friend of PC C such that when C tries to get A to do somthing, he has a negative modifier.

BTW, rolling social contests like this is a fairly new thing, and puts you pretty damn close to innovative. Not quite, but, like I said, it's hard to be innovative when you don't know what's out there. My point is that, in combination with other good techniques, your game in total can be innovative, even if no particular single element is. The combination just needs to be new. So it's things like adding social conflict that make your game a heartbreaker, and potentially innovative if you just get past certain traditional methods.

I'm not getting what you're saying here, but I sense that it's important. Can you clarify?

How is this used in play? What elements can add to the number? What stylistic feel do you want it to represent?

That's good, because doing so on the first try would be extremely unlikely. But what you can do is make a game that will attract some players, and learn something in the making of it that will help with your next design.

So, given that RPG play comes in a bewildering variety of forms it's always best to state goals in relative terms. Faster than TROS, or faster than D&D would be something that we could get a hold on.

But, given that it could be faster, what does the part of the system that's slowing you down do for the player. What are the rules intended to do in your game?

I personally would suggest the "steady state" start. That is, you present history up to a certain date where the game begins, and then just have the NPCs do what makes sense given their motives after that point.

Here's an eye opener. The biggest problem with D&D and getting players to act heroically is that the characters can die. Since characters can die, players always have an incentive to play it safe. Have you considered having a rule system that only allows for death when dramatically appropriate, instead of as a result of poor tactical play? Because that's what promote heroic play.

So, how can you make the most of your social conflict, and other system techniques to link into the setting that you have? What sort of statements do you want to see from play?

But what I like to see are large scale selections at character generation that are simple to make, like classes, but which represent actual background options. These are like "classes" in a way, but tend to provide nothing but "skills" or other effectivenesses. And then after chargen, the player typically then buys things by the point system to represent whatever the specific in-game action is all about.

I want to make a quick statment about my agenda here - I'm not being completely altrusistic. About once a year, I find a game like this, and provide the same critiques. My hope is that other potential designers like yourself can be helped by the messages here. They might recognize that they're in the same place as you are, and get almost as much from the threads as you do. In that way, we prevent the forum from being flooded with people like yourself.

I just wanted to be clear on that, and get my agenda in the open. I'm having fun working with you (and you've been a superlative model - maybe the best I've ever had), and want to continue. And I do like some of your ideas. But my participation here is mostly educational, and not intended to constitute some big endorsement. We've yet to really see what you can produce, I believe.

Ravien,

Just a couple comments about statements you've made about the combat system. Basically, you keep saying it is very intutive and very fast.

Regarding the former, intuitiveness of the system...well, perhaps it is for you. My experience with it so far, given your examples, is that it is not all that intutive -- I certainly don't quite get how it works, even with the help via examples you've provided.

On the other hand, I do get TROS combat, just by reading through the examples in the free basic rules (also note that I have not played either your game or TROS, so I'm not defending one or attacking the other).

My point isn't that you're wrong, but that you might be. I don't know how many other groups have played your game, but my experience regarding this aspect differs from "what's expressed on the package."

Now, the reason I mention other groups -- specifically other groups who have had no coaching from you or someone you trained in, who did it "cold" from the rules -- is because you can declare the rules are intuitive all you want, and they will be to you or your group...because you designed the system. Your experience, however, is not a good indicator of how clear or graspable the rules are.

The problem with your group grasping them is that you are there to explain it to them, so they benefit from your knowledge of the system. Intuitiveness can just be from the fact that you know the rules well, they make sense to you, so they seem intuitive to you.

Now, I will wait for the full rules to be available before I make any sort of permanent judgement about how intuitive the combat mechanics are.

Faster than TROS by a large margin. Faster than D&D by a smaller margin.

Regarding the former, intuitiveness of the system...well, perhaps it is for you. My experience with it so far, given your examples, is that it is not all that intutive -- I certainly don't quite get how it works, even with the help via examples you've provided.

My problem with this statement is that TROS resolves notably faster than D&D (based on the comments of numerous posters).

And since you keep using it as a benchmark against which you are measuring your game, I'm wondering how much experience you've had playing TROS, or if you're simply going by what you feel it would play like given your reading of it?

Ravien wrote: In combat, opponents must try to hit each other without being hit. To do so, they roll opposed Attack Speed rolls. The faster of the combatants wins, because he is faster. If he wins by just a little bit, then his opponent was not fast enough to win outright, but still fast enough to block the incoming attack. Does this make sense so far? So the first resolution of the Attack roll determines the action, to the extent of who was faster in their attack and by how much, and whether or not this allowed the opponent to defend themselves.
The second resolution does not require a new roll, it simply uses the same roll and adds a different number: Attack Power (instead of Attack Speed). This new number (Attack Power) is compared directly to the AC of the opponent. The opponents AC is a combination of their armor and their own inherent bodily AC. But just like how there are two attack numbers (Attack Speed and Attack Power), there are also two AC's: Total AC and Block AC. Total AC is what I just mentioned, but Block AC is Total AC PLUS Attack Power. The logic behind the Block AC is that the opponent is adding their strength and the weight of their sword to their defence.
Damage is determined by how much an attacker's Attack Power beats the defenders AC (Total AC or Block AC depending on if they were at least fast enough to block or too slow to do that much).
I feel that this is intuitive because it is less abstract than "did I hit?" and more reflective of the nature of swinging a sword in a duel. i.e: the important things to consider when fighting are how fast you can swing and how much oomph you can put into that swing. You can really only "miss" if the opponent dodges, and that resolves in a similar fashion.
If this still is difficult to understand, then I apologise. But I still maintain that this mechanic is intuitive, because it is to me. I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I'm sure that at least someone out there might find this concept as intuitive as I do.

It's very intuitive, at least the way you explained it now. IMHO the confusion stems from the fact that you changed your system from two rolls to one in the course of this thread and that you keep referencing tables and options ("if the opponent dodges") we don't have access to.

Ravien,

Thanks for the explanations! I have to "ditto" what Markus said. It very much makes sense now, with this newest explanation, and that a large part of the problem was certainly the lack of the tables you've been referencing for results which we don't have.

That said, yes, I would be interested in seeing the tables. Go ahead and post them and let us know (either .doc or .pdf is fine with me, but .pdf is probably the better choice for a wide audience). I'll definitely download them. Why?

Well, because your combat system really interests me. I've been looking for a way to make my 3E game's fights run more quickly, because we play on-line and that stretches out the already ridiculous amount of time necessary for combat.

I am worried about the sheer lethality of it, however, as I would like to keep the heroic flavor D&D provides via hit points. Any suggestions? Does your game have any rules for making combat less lethal? Or is it not really as lethal as I'm seeing?

(I'm sorry I'm focusing on the combat mechanic to the exclusion of the other material you've put up for discussion; much of it is quite interesting, but I don't have the time right now to look at it all, and the combat system is what I find most interesting right now. I hope it is helping you at least somewhat with your game to discuss it).

Thanks for the explanations! I have to "ditto" what Markus said. It very much makes sense now, with this newest explanation, and that a large part of the problem was certainly the lack of the tables you've been referencing for results which we don't have.

That said, yes, I would be interested in seeing the tables. Go ahead and post them and let us know (either .doc or .pdf is fine with me, but .pdf is probably the better choice for a wide audience). I'll definitely download them.

Well, because your combat system really interests me. I've been looking for a way to make my 3E game's fights run more quickly, because we play on-line and that stretches out the already ridiculous amount of time necessary for combat.

I am worried about the sheer lethality of it, however, as I would like to keep the heroic flavor D&D provides via hit points. Any suggestions? Does your game have any rules for making combat less lethal? Or is it not really as lethal as I'm seeing?

Does your game have any rules for making combat less lethal?

(I'm sorry I'm focusing on the combat mechanic to the exclusion of the other material you've put up for discussion; much of it is quite interesting, but I don't have the time right now to look at it all, and the combat system is what I find most interesting right now. I hope it is helping you at least somewhat with your game to discuss it).

Ravien wrote: Yeah i read that essay. I found it hard to determine whether Eclipse had a GNS focus, whether it needed one, or whether I wanted one.

No matter how hard I try, I can't concoct a mechanic that increases attributes through use and doesn't incentivise behvaiour that I don't want. So I've scrapped that idea. I'll get to my ideas for a reward mechanic later on...

Sure! I know it sounds cliche, but I am not concerned with balance because I believe that a mighty sorcerer who can command the elements can have just as much impact on the world as a simple thief or heroic fighter. My opinion on this matter stems from epic novels. I think balance should not be enforced on players, but instead should stem from their place in the world and their protagonistic potential. "Balance" would shatter the social status of a sorcerer if they were equally powerful as a fighter.

Perhaps in essence, players make their own balance, by choosing to take risks and doing their best to succeed. No risk = no gain. I'll get back to this with my reward mechanic ideas. I hope this helps some, if not, then either I've misunderstood your question or I'm not sure how to answer it.

Actually, I was envisioning social combat to usually require more than one roll. For instance, I roll to insult someone; I succeed and damage their Ego, but in doing so, I increase my own Ego. In retaliation, they can roll to insult me, and if they succeed, then they gain back Ego points equal to how much Ego damage they do to me. This repartee could go on for hours I guess, but you get the idea.

In regards to the heartbreaker factor, I must admit that your posts have given me incentive to avoid that monicker if I can.

I think I meant that in Eclipse, your character may have to fight for their life, respond with witticisms to protect your Ego and reputation, and perform tasks within your organizations to advance in power and reputation, and it's up to players to choose how to divide their efforts and advancement. In terms of my job, I think I meant that I need to do everything I can to make that choice a hard one, not by making it difficult to achieve what you want, but by making it difficult to choose what you want most, and making the rewards for any choice satisfactory.

Perhaps your character devotes all their efforts into developing a scathing wit, but really can't handle themself in a fight: not to worry! you can just use your wit to damage your opponents Ego, thus imposing penalties on their rolls, and perhaps even enlisting the help of others to defend you as you are clearly superior to the goat-loving nancy-boy thug you just outwitted.

"AC" is used to directly resist physical attacks. AC is the number that is subtracted from an opponents AP (Attack Power) to determine the difference, which in turn determines damage. Beat armor by a large margin, and you deal more deadly damage; beat it by a small margin, and you barely manage to scratch them. Every creature has a base AC, because it isn't terribly easy to just push a blade through someone, and armor adds to this. Certain creatures are naturally "tougher", and so have higher base AC's, despite the fact that they don't wear armor. Pushing a sword through someone wearing full-plate is noticeably harder than pushing it through an unarmored person, regardless of if they are moving or not. The stylistic feel I want it to represent is exactly what I think it already does represent: making you harder to push a sword through, and thus harder to damage. I just need a name to match the style.

Faster than TROS by a large margin. Faster than D&D by a smaller margin. Not as fast as freeform. Eclipse sits somewhere in there, and if I had more experience with more games, I could be more specific with regards to speed.

Clearly my perceptions on this matter are biased, but I include the rules that I do because I feel they 'add' to the game, rather than subtract from it.

To me, free-form may have more potential, but it feels like less of a game.

As for specific rules, they are intended to help conceptualise what is actually happening in the shared imaginative space, and then embelished on with specific details from the GM.

They are also their to take control away from the players, to the effect that they now have something to work towards in the form of advancement, and also to create verisimilitude in that the characters are not gods (only the GM can be God ;)

I personally would suggest the "steady state" start. That is, you present history up to a certain date where the game begins, and then just have the NPCs do what makes sense given their motives after that point.

Sorry for not making it clearer, but that is pretty much exactly how I have created it.

But whilst I won't prevent this in any way, I won't encourage it, because I am a firm believer that things happen in the world which the players cannot be aware of but which may still affect them. Similarly, they may affect the world in ways that they are not aware of too (this happens alot). But this is reaching more into GMing styles and less concerned with my setting or system. I certainly won't be doing anything to encourage or discourage such plot machinations if I can help it, mainly because I know that there is no "One Right Way" to GM, and if I try to encourage a particalr way, I will inevitably discourage certain GMs from my system.

Hmmmm. Personally, I think that such a thing simply promotes one kind of heroic play. I think I can still maintain a system where death is always a danger, but still have characters do heroic deeds. In fact, I feel that the risk of death plays a large role in determining whether or not an action is heroic.

The other part being whether it is done for the good of other people, and not for the good of oneself. Perhaps there are other aspects to heroism, but I feel these are the major ones. I mean, all you need to do is look at real life: we have heroes, and no-one is immortal or protected by divine writ that they will not die unless it is "dramatic enough" for them to do so, but we still have heroes (NOT sport-stars!).

Anyway, my idea is basically that characters are awarded attribute points and reputation points, not via level, experience, or rolling, but through being heroic.

Attribute points are awarded according to the risks involved, as judged on-the-fly by the entire gaming group (players and GM). Concensus must be reached or no points are awarded at all.

In the text I will of course provide examples of how these might be evaluated, according to the objective risks and the capabilities of the heroes involved.

Reputation points will be awarded according to how many people witness the event, and the risk involved. In the case of completing tasks set for you by your organisation, you receive an extra flat rate of reputation points for each task (after all, you are simply doing what they ask you to do), being equal to your Influence modifier.

alternatively, if character wishes to be a bit less benevolent and a bit more malevolent, then the risk/reputation thing still applies, but reputation points are doubled, and "heroic deeds" become "evil deeds", such as killing the innocent, rape and pillage, etc.

And to pre-empt the question: "what does reputation do?", the answer is: "enables progression through the ranks of organisations, brings monetary bonuses such as cheaper purchases,

makes it easier to win in social combat through bonuses to rolls and Ego, makes it easier to obtain information (not really a mechanic for this, but certainly something a GM can consider),

In Eclipse, class opens up two things: a derived attribute or path of progression, and class-based abilities, which are usually devoted to making the most of your derived attribute.

Changing class simply opens up a new derived attribute. everything important (like all the base attributes) can be improved however a player desires. But now that I've done away with levels, I can't think of any coherent and plausible way to implement "multi-classing", without either letting players be every class at once or imposing arbitrary penalties.

Hello there all,

Ravien:
I've been following this thread for a few days, and I had a question as to how your mechanic handles outnumbered opponents (where one character is facing 2 or more opponents), and how do you determine when missile fire occurs during the round? Is there a separate phase for missile combat (blah), or is it weaved into the combat round in some way?


Bracken
PS: My vote is for a pdf file, everyone has the free reader by now. If you don't have a pdf maker I'd suggest downloading openoffice, it's free, and it can export files as pdfs.

Mike:
I'd love to respond to your questions and points, but I don't have enough time at the moment, but I'll get on it as soon as I can.

Here is the link to the .pdf for the combat table page. I've only given the tables, so you'll need knowledge from this thread to understand all of it. But as I've said before, I'll answer any questions that anyone has as best as I can.
http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/66933/EclipseCombatTables.pdf

Bracken:
Multiple opponents are handled deadly-like. I've given a brief, though probably insufficient, explanation in my earlier reply to greyorm. When I have time for a more comprehensive reply, I'll address multiple opponents for you.

As for "missile fire", or Ranged Combat, it happens at the same time. I'll try to be brief (cos I have little time). Basically, if I want to fire my bow at somone, then there is no "phase" that I have to fire in, but instead, I fire when others do their own thing. For example, two combatants are duelling over there, and one of them is my friend. So I decide to shoot the other dude to help out my friend. In the first action, they make their attack/defense, and I draw and nock my arrow, in the second action, they again make their attack/defense, and I aim and fire. The arrow hits at the same time as their attacks are made, thus, not interferring with the attacks, but certainly preventing any more attacks assuming I get a good shot off. But in the end, you don't want to be trying to shoot someone while engaged in melee with them, unless you are a fantastic dodger. I know this is kinda a lacking explanation, but I'm typing as fast as I can.

I'll give more satisfactory answers when I can.

Bye for now!

Ravien wrote:
Bracken:
Multiple opponents are handled deadly-like. I've given a brief, though probably insufficient, explanation in my earlier reply to greyorm. When I have time for a more comprehensive reply, I'll address multiple opponents for you.

As for "missile fire", or Ranged Combat, it happens at the same time. I'll try to be brief (cos I have little time). Basically, if I want to fire my bow at somone, then there is no "phase" that I have to fire in, but instead, I fire when others do their own thing. For example, two combatants are duelling over there, and one of them is my friend. So I decide to shoot the other dude to help out my friend. In the first action, they make their attack/defense, and I draw and nock my arrow, in the second action, they again make their attack/defense, and I aim and fire. The arrow hits at the same time as their attacks are made, thus, not interferring with the attacks, but certainly preventing any more attacks assuming I get a good shot off. But in the end, you don't want to be trying to shoot someone while engaged in melee with them, unless you are a fantastic dodger. I know this is kinda a lacking explanation, but I'm typing as fast as I can.

I'll give more satisfactory answers when I can.

Bye for now!

After reading it I'm still unclear what you mean by "splitting attacks", there are sereral ways to interperete this. When you get more time I'd like to hear more about it.

Just to clarify, there are 2 exchanges per combat round? The winner of the intitiative/attack roll determines who gets the second action?

When does movement occur?

How is manuevering done in combat?

How do you handle actions where a character is trying to do something another character is trying to prevent? For example, let's say I'm trying to close a door before the enemy closes and can attack me. Is this just a straight Speed roll?

There's a thread in the TROS forum here that might interest you: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5276

Lots of ideas about how to take a tactical system and apply it to social combat.

Just to be clear, when you use "I" above, do you mean your job as designer or as GM? Or both?

Would that be good for your game, or would you prefer to create a focus on the three areas you point out?

Have you been doing more reading? The above statement is called the Lumpley Principle herabouts.

Interesting perspective. The rules limit the characters in what they can do in-game? Do I have that right?

Basically, is it the player winning the fight, or the character?

That is, it can't just make them more powerful, but make them think about doing more heroic things.

For example, can anyone nominate someone for a reward? Even the player who's character did the act? Who decides when things are deadlocked and no points are given? If it's the GM, then really, it's his way or the highway, no?

Cool. These would be given out as often as people felt it was warranted? When it happens? Or does this happen after play?

It's just in this case, you require something in-game to substantiate the claim to the points. You're sending two different messages here, which can be confusing. One says the rewards are for the player for having the character do heroic stuff. The other says the reward is for the character doing in-game stuff. That can work, potentially, it's just that you have to make sure that the players understand how it works. For example, what would be an allowable in-game description for how an increase in, say, strength, occurs.

Ravien wrote: Thanks for the link, I've be reading alot of the essays and threads here, and I've noticed that many of the topics are way over my head. But I think overall I've gained some things here and there when I understood them.

As designer, but I guess it applies to GMing as well.

Would that be good for your game, or would you prefer to create a focus on the three areas you point out?

I prefer to focus on the different areas. I'm not a fan of homogeneity.

Interesting perspective. The rules limit the characters in what they can do in-game? Do I have that right?

To a degree, yes. They limit them so that they can't say "I kill everyone", or "I bust out of jail with a piece of string". But I'm trying to create rules that make as much possible as I can. I understand the same goal can be achieved without rules, like in free-form games, but I dunno. I guess it's kinda like life. Our universe operates under a given set of rules, and we are bound by them. But we can push them in inventive ways. I'm guess that's what I mean by limiting what characters can do.

Ok, that's a good way of looking at it. Thanks for the new perspective, but I don't think I'll take away the ability for characters to die yet.

However, I have been juggling an idea in my head for allowing players to sacrifice permanently 1 attribute point to lower the type of damage dealt to them by one degree. For example, say their character takes a fatal wound, killing them instantly. The player could choose to sacrifice one of their attribute points permanently and lower that damage to just a mortal wound, enough to kill, but not immediately. I dunno, just an idea for now.

That is, it can't just make them more powerful, but make them think about doing more heroic things.

Well, I guess I was thinking that reputation gain would incentivise more heroic play, as I reckon that may be a factor in why a real-life hero might do more heroic stuff.

Yeah, any person can nominate someone for advancement. I was thinking of making it clear that every person at the table had to agree, and that gives every person equal power. If one person disagrees, then no award is given until concensus is reached. Consensus must also be reached to conclude that no award is given. Kinda like a jury. I don't know how that would work yet.

I was leaning towards during play, but I'm not sure how much that might become annoying, having to re-calculate all your stuff because of a single change. Maybe after each session might work smoother.

I'll have to think on that some more. At first I thought it might be easy: "my character became stronger because the heroic act required me to fight strong opponents", but then considering that you could advance without any fighting at all, I guess it might have to come down to "natural increase in strength", or something.

Hi again Ravien,

I think I have a better understanding now. Multiple opponents are quite, quite brutal. Not sure how much I like this, but I suppose with the right tactics (defend against two and attack the other and pray you hurt him real real bad) you might be able to overcome. Is their any penalty if you make more than one attack or defense in the same action?

Example:

Bob is fighting three Orcs. He decides to attack one and defend against the other two. Since he is performing all these actions atonce is he at any penalty? (other than expending say 3 of his 5 actions)

Also, (and again, sorry if I have missed this in a previous posting) how is it determined who is the attacker/defender. Does each combatant chooses secretly (as in TRoS with the red die/blue die concept) or do they just state what they are doing. If so, who declares first? Is there a way to choose to go defensive at the last moment after you realize you are both attacking?

Also, I don't agree with you that if both attackers go defensive the action is not used. That pause took time, and the action should be wasted.

Bracken
PS: Ravien, a lot has been developed on the game since this thread was started, with many new things coming to light and some changes made over the course of this post. If it is going to take you much longer to get a rules pdf out, I'd suggest you repost the revised combat mechanic with the additions and changes that have occured so it's a bit easier to understand evrything as it stands now.

Ok, after considering Bracken's suggestion and looking over this thread, I have concluded that it might be beneficial if I started two new threads -one on the combat mechanics in Eclipse (which seem to have garnered the most interest), and one on the social interaction mechanics (which I am most interested in)- and leave this one going for the rewards mechanic, which Mike is being very nice in helping me work through :) If this is a Bad Thing here at the Forge, then I'm sure Ron Edwards will strike me down appropriately ;)

But before I start the new threads, I'll deal with all the latest comments and those I missed last time, starting with the newest and working backwards.

Is their any penalty if you make more than one attack or defense in the same action?

Example:

Bob is fighting three Orcs. He decides to attack one and defend against the other two. Since he is performing all these actions atonce is he at any penalty? (other than expending say 3 of his 5 actions)

Also, (and again, sorry if I have missed this in a previous posting) how is it determined who is the attacker/defender. Does each combatant chooses secretly (as in TRoS with the red die/blue die concept) or do they just state what they are doing. If so, who declares first? Is there a way to choose to go defensive at the last moment after you realize you are both attacking?

Is there a way to choose to go defensive at the last moment after you realize you are both attacking?

Also, I don't agree with you that if both attackers go defensive the action is not used. That pause took time, and the action should be wasted.

So, to reiterate, your goal in design is to have the rules provide difficult challenges for the characters to overcome. That's a cool goal, and an unusual one. Usually, it's the GM job solely to prepare appropriate challenges, and, at best, the system only informs them of what level of challenge is appropriate. But what I'm hearing is that you want the system to produce appropriate challenges. That would be a very interesting addition to your game.

For example, putatively the physics in Indiana Jones are those of our world, but he manages to take punishment that would kill anyone, and generally do impossible things. If you modeled the physics of the world, Indy would die. If you modeled the dramatic expectations, then he manages to survive because it's appropriate for him to do so, despite the risks taken.

This is an important and complex issue. Note that D20 provides "plot immunity" to characters in the form of Hit Points. In most editions there's little chance of a character with a lot of HP going down in the current conflict. In fact, in a well designed scenario, you'll find only the last fight as the one in which there's any significant chance of character death.

Interesting. The problem is that this mechanic, like many others, makes the character less interesting for having "lost" the fight. So you're penalizing the player. This indicates to the player that they're goal is to win each fight, as a personal player goal - not just as a character goal. Again, this can be detrimental to heroism, depending on whether or not its tactically sound in the game to play it "safe".

I think there are no such things as "real-life heroes" that go out again and again and risk their lives. Real heroes do what they do because they are thrust into a situation to which they must react, and do so bravely at that time. Even the heroes of literature don't do it for the glory in most cases, but based on their moral convictions.

In any case, none of this addresses the fact that if the rewards make the characters, say, more able to kill things, that it will inform the players that they're supposed to be about killing things. If you want play to be about character values, then perhaps the rewards should add to those?

The problem with using the open Jury debate method is that it can take a long time to determine that a Jury is hung (can't decide). So what I'd think might work well is something where the proposing player states the level that they think is appropriate, and perhaps a short reason why. Then the player to their left either agrees or proposes another level. When it gets back to the starting player, they propose a level again, based on what they think the consensus is likely to be. Then each other player goes thumbs up or thumbs down. If there are any thumbs down, no reward is given. If all are thumbs up, then the player recieves the modified reward.

That, or something like it, could be done in short order. This kind of organization is good to keep it clear how to conduct these things, and prevents them from going forever.

During play gets the best results. It means that players are reminded again and again about this important part of play. The problem, as you mentioned is it bogging things down. What might work is to have the rewards come at the end of each scene or at some reqular interval like that. The GM just asks, "rewards?" and the players make their suggestions at that time.

Then I'd have the rewards only get spent between sessions or something. That way recalculation only happens dong that down time as opposed to during play.

So, does the player track these separately - Reputation, and Evil Deeds? Do they cancel each other? Is there any incentive to stick to the good side, or is it entirely the player's option?

Cool - does this mean that you're considering an abstract wealth system? That is, does the player keep track of electrum pieces, or does he just have a rating that represents his purchasing power? There are some strong arguments for the abstraction, even in the name of realism.

Why not a mechanic for this? I mean, what's the difference between social combat to make someone look bad, and a conflict intended for you to browbeat someone into giving out info or somesuch? I see all these, money, social conflict, and info as all part of the same pool of contests, potentially.

Ravien wrote:

You cannot use one action to do more than one "thing" (with the sole exception of casting a spell and performing a physical action simultaneously, but that's a special case). An action in Eclipse is not like a "round", in that it is not a measure of time as such, but is simply the doing of a thing. At character creation, you will be able to do less things within a given period of time (a round) than later on when you are more advanced. You cannot swing a sword in two directions at once. So taking your example, here's the simplest form of what we might see:

Bob has 5 actions, why not. Each of the 3 orcs have 2 actions each. Bob would use his 1st action to deal with orc #1's 1st action, then use his 2nd action to deal with orc #2's 1st action, then use his 3rd action to deal with orc #3's 1st action, and then he would cycle back, using his 4th action to deal with orc #1's 2nd action, and finally using his 5th action to deal with orc #2's 2nd action. Now he has run out of actions, and orc #3 still has its 2nd action remaining, and thus Bob has been "overwhelmed" by the 3 orcs, and orc #3 can strike Bob without Bob being abe to defend. And that would conclude the first round.

This is the simplest possible example. In practice Bob would be sufficiently powerful to kill each of the orcs before they got their second actions (unless he rolled really, really poorly), and would have various abilities and he would be able to manouvre and dodge and all sorts of other stuff. And of course, the orcs would also have other options available. If the orcs all had the Concert Fighting ability, Bob would be screwed (probably). If Bob had the Battle Trained ability (negates Concert Fighting, grants 1 extra action per round for every opponent more than one), Bob would wipe the floor with them with actions to spare.

So in summary, under default conditions, when faced with multiple opponents you must "cycle" your actions between them. I picture this in my head like how such duels are portrayed in movies, with the hero alternating attacks and defenses between foes. I hope that made sense.

No initiative, no rolling of dice. Declarations of intent define the action. "I wait to see what my opponent does" is the same as saying "I defend this action". "I take a swipe at his head" is the same as saying "I attack this action, and if I deal damage, it will be to his head". Who declares first? The players, every time. Why? For the same reason as below:

No. I want to avoid 'intent stacking'. ie: "I wait to see what my opponent does" "He leaps forward to attack you" "In that case, I will attack him, hoping to force him into the defensive" "He notices your attack, and chooses to defend" "Ok then, I cease my attack and drink a Pepsi".

You get the point. One action = one declaration. The players choose what they are going to do, the GM chooses what the opponents will do, and describes the action to the players.