Sort of nipping stuff in the bud:

I've defined, roughly, 'advantages'... I do need a better name I guess, in terms of combat and made them comparable to Fu powers in some respects.

In the example I wrote, Strength provided essentially a 'universal Lore' point that applied to all combat checks for Offense and damage, in addition to Fu Lore. I even went so far as to use Strength AS A FU point at one point in lieu of actually bringing real Fu to the table.  

This is a mistake, and to keep following it will lead me to the path of damnation and ruination... or something.

Actually, what happened was I was sitting down and trying to 'knock out' some Advantages for my eventual list and wound up with advantages that felt like really weak Fu.  Oops.

Strength can, and should, have an effect on combat.  I think my previous example was too fast and loose, however, and too focused on combat.  First of all, the advantage of Strength should be more fixed, not 'I use it here', that's for Fu to do.  Second, Strength should have other factors, and many Advantages should not even be related to combat normally.

Lets leave Strength alone for the moment.  I could use 'Smart' or something like that, but I want to move away from the 'six attribute' mentality.

So, we can have an Advantage of 'Archeologist', an homage to Indiana Jones let's say.

Now... this MIGHT wind up stomping all over the 'skills' portion later, but let's drive on anyway.  Archeologist will give a nice fat bonus to all checks for archeology related tasks... in fact, in many cases the character won't have to roll at all, he's a heroic archeologist! he only needs to roll when being opposed or the task is heroically difficult (finding Hamanaptra!).

More, it also means he is recognized by the international community as an archeologist. He can work, or find work, teaching archeology, he gets job offers to run or work on digs.  Most of the advantage, in this case, is not rolled.

Anyone see where I'm trying to go with this?

So: Defining a character...

What is a character? to the player it's his guy. We all know that. there are some wonky threads about what exactly that means, levels of immersion, interactivity and all that shit, but we aren't interested in that.

Weellll.... a character is, essentially, how a player interacts with the rules. Bear with me here: I'm not making sweeping statements for all of gamerdom, but from the specific perspective of 'designing a game'.

We've laid out a pretty exhaustive example of Fu, how the player rolls out combat.  Not quite the way other games do it, but not entirely unique either.

But thats only one way.

So: a character is the players method if interacting with the rules.  So: how do we define that character?  How do we make each step of defining the character somehow meaningful, or potentially meaningful?

I could go so far as to suggest specific rules and subsets of rules for things like gender and even name. Gender specific rules, however, do not read well with the modern egalitarian public.

I could do the opposite and make everything a useful rule. You could 'roll your name' to accomplish some task if I took it that far.  

My answer? Anything that is purely player defined color is not even mentioned in the rules. You want to name your character? that's up to you bub.  From a design standpoint it's reasonably simple: no mention of those things at all.  This runs counter to current trends, which is why I mention it.  Ideally, a character 'sheet' should be small and easy to use. Everything vital goes on that sheet, something I've discussed before.  I toy with the idea of producing laminated 3x5 cardstock 'sheets' for pregenerated characters, the downside of laminated cardstock is that its hard for a player to make changes.

Here's the deal: aside from providing space for a creative soul to write out a backstory or draw a picture, I don't really need to include details like that on the sheet.  

But I've strayed: the game defines a character via three or four things: Advantages, Disadvantage (one per character, no point value, self defined), Skills And Fu. Of course, since then I've added the idea of adopting social and belief ratings, which would up our total to 6.

Notice, I don't make individual wealth important. No money, no wealth rating. Not a game of collecting loot.  Or Xp.  This puts me in a bit of a bind, really. It can be easily argued that one reason D&D is so very popular is that you get to collect stuff, compete if you will with other players by how much 'stuff' you collected.  I've even expressed disdain for games that USE wealth attributes instead of letting you collect the loot yourself.

Here I am going against what is both apparently a very successful model for 'why gaming is fun' AND violating what should be my own personal preference!

Here is the thing: I went into this expecting to violate some sacred precepts, slaughter some sacred cows.  I don't think I need to have characters earn XP and 'grow' more powerful as a default assumption to the game.  This means that starting characters are as weak as they will ever be, and long time play characters can start to violate the balance of the mechanics simply by accrueing enough points.  

I do have things in mind to keep characters 'fresh', things like using a threatened belief as motivation for that next point of Fu.  Characters should change as much as 'grow'.

Wealth I think is actually worked all crabbed in RPG's.  You have inflow and outgoing expenses that have nothing to do with anything else. Rough description, mind.  Works fine and dandy for dungeon crawling fantasy, even conan-esque swords and sorcery (as long as there are wenches and the like to spend the wealth on)...

But the model always looks funny in Modern Settings and even Sci-Fi stuff.  

Like any good tale, money is only important if its relevant to the story at hand.  Note that it is a lower case story.  This gets into the 'game play model'.  

But, I've run out of time and I've wandered far from my intention, to illustrate how we will define a character.  I'll have to revist this once I've collected my thoughts a bit more.

Quote from: SpikeSort of nipping stuff in the bud:

I've defined, roughly, 'advantages'... I do need a better name I guess, in terms of combat and made them comparable to Fu powers in some respects.

In the example I wrote, Strength provided essentially a 'universal Lore' point that applied to all combat checks for Offense and damage, in addition to Fu Lore. I even went so far as to use Strength AS A FU point at one point in lieu of actually bringing real Fu to the table.  

This is a mistake, and to keep following it will lead me to the path of damnation and ruination... or something.

Actually, what happened was I was sitting down and trying to 'knock out' some Advantages for my eventual list and wound up with advantages that felt like really weak Fu.  Oops.

Strength can, and should, have an effect on combat.  I think my previous example was too fast and loose, however, and too focused on combat.  First of all, the advantage of Strength should be more fixed, not 'I use it here', that's for Fu to do.  Second, Strength should have other factors, and many Advantages should not even be related to combat normally.

Lets leave Strength alone for the moment.  I could use 'Smart' or something like that, but I want to move away from the 'six attribute' mentality.

So, we can have an Advantage of 'Archeologist', an homage to Indiana Jones let's say.

Now... this MIGHT wind up stomping all over the 'skills' portion later, but let's drive on anyway.  Archeologist will give a nice fat bonus to all checks for archeology related tasks... in fact, in many cases the character won't have to roll at all, he's a heroic archeologist! he only needs to roll when being opposed or the task is heroically difficult (finding Hamanaptra!).

More, it also means he is recognized by the international community as an archeologist. He can work, or find work, teaching archeology, he gets job offers to run or work on digs.  Most of the advantage, in this case, is not rolled.

Anyone see where I'm trying to go with this?

In this particular example, archeology, I'm wondering if the advantage would come with a set of skills.  That seems to be what you're implying by saying he doesn't have to roll for a lot of stuff once he has the advantage.  But wouldn't that be like giving him a single dot of Fu in Archeology?

Anyway, my original question is about advantages being associated with set of skills...

Quote from: SpikeSo: Defining a character...

What is a character? to the player it's his guy. We all know that. there are some wonky threads about what exactly that means, levels of immersion, interactivity and all that shit, but we aren't interested in that.

Weellll.... a character is, essentially, how a player interacts with the rules. Bear with me here: I'm not making sweeping statements for all of gamerdom, but from the specific perspective of 'designing a game'.

This is where things often bog down in my musings...

To me, in a way, how you define a character is totally dependent on what you are going to cover with the rules - and vice versa. The two are intertwined.  One of the things that always amused me about D&D is the height/weight tables.  I've often wondered why Strength isn't more tied to the actual pysical attributes of height (to some extent) and weight (to a much larger degree). Instead, they are divorced completely.  So you can have a guy who is 5'9" 155 pounds who is an 18 Strength and another character who is 6'3" 250 lbs and is a 12 Strength.  Same with Dexterity.

So you're right to say that all that's really needed for play are the things that matter to the rule system.

Here's the rub.  To do so would be foreign to most gamers I know - because the other stuff is what makes the role.  The stuff you mention makes the roll.  Contrary to current popular thought, no matter how gamey one gets, there always seems to be a desire to at least provide a nod to the role side of things.

So be careful in how much you throw away in order to slay the cow.  Sometimes there's a (virtually non-rational) reason some things exist.

To be honest I worry that I use my 'fu style' mechanics too freely across the system.  A lot of fun in gaming is had exploring the system, in not being able to strip everything down to it's simplest elements.  This is why I think that True20 will never supplant D&D, no matter how superior it is... it's too simple to hold up to long term play (long term defined in years perhaps) without getting repetitive systemically.

So I don't want Archeology to be looked at as a Fu dot.

Now: A non-archeologist would have to roll to identify hieroglyphics as Egyptian. He might GUESS they were Egyptian. He might even have bonuses to his roll from being Smart or having knowledge:History type skills (so not planning to use "Knowledge:History" as a skill...), but he has to Roll.

An Archeologist, in the Spike Fu model, is not just some guy who knows his Archeology... he's a Heroic Archeologist. He Knows, without rolling anything that those Hieroglyphics are actually Mayan, not Egyptian, he can tell you the right time period... if he actually has the right skill, he might be able to translate them...all without rolling. It's his Heroic Competence showing through.  Now, he WOULD have to roll if some Villian was setting up a forgery, he's opposed by someone capable.  The GM could make him roll his skills (even if he doesn't have any... the advantage presumes he has the minimum requirements automatically... in other words he rolls without a skill bonus) for unusual or particularly obscure bits. Of course, the Heroic Archeology provides a bonus to the those rolls.

I toy with the idea of folding the 'who you know' into the advantages. That is, certain advantages (like Archeology) imply that you know people. Now, if I do keep a 'Dot' style rating for advantages... which I am strongly inclined not to do, then this actually becomes the source and means of tracking your social circles. (Luke Crane will so sue me for that one... ) While advantages like strength would not.

Of course, I had the idea before of having a pool of Innate advantages (things like Strength) that every character should have... that is a minimum basic starting point, then another pool of points that could either be innate, making the character something of a prodigy say, or external advantages or skills, making the character someone who had been around. Of course, the reason for this split originally had to do with 'growth', which I don't see much need for now.


I'm aware that tossing things out 'just because' can be bad.  In this case I specifically want to avoid that power creep feeling you get in games, where you start small and get bigger.  Obviously it can be an option for play, where I would put in an optional system GM's could use to simulate 'heroes journey' style play, I just don't want it to be the default.  Again, it goes back to heroic competence: Your Dude, in game, is a bad ass. He's not a beginner bad-ass, or a potential bad-ass. He is the god damn ass kicker, and he's out of gum...

Same thing with wealth: If we take a default assumption of 'middle class' lifestyle, whatever that means to a given setting, we can assume that the character has enough money to eat, has a house to sleep in and even a car. They have pocket money for non-important purchases.  Getting a large sum of ready cash for a major 'thing' becomes the focus of an adventure.  

I don't see how making it a game of accounting for every dollar will make sense. It's something players and groups can do on their own. 'You look the street tough you just whupped in a mighty Fu battle, he had twenty bucks in his wallet...'

But it doesn't really fit with, again, the assumptions driving the game. It doesn't really require support beyond maybe a line going 'some players like to collect loot. there is nothing wrong with this behavior, let them collect what they like. The only value on game play this has is what you and your group decide to give it.'

I'm painting some areas with a broad brush here, I know.  That leads to clashes of assumption.

Yesterday I mucked up talking about defining a character.  I got off on weird tangents and totally whiffed my actual point... much less advanced it.

To revist the idea: When I talk about 'defining a character' I mean specifically from the game design/play aspect.  I'm not into namby pamby hand holding over 'it's me in game' or 'interface mechanisms'. I know, I know, I used a few of those terms.  But we ain't about that here. This here is where we define the character in terms of mechanics.

Aside from lacking set 'attributes' that we commonly expect, I imagine that I don't deviate too far from the norm  here.

Power, comparatively, is rated in Fu, however that is only one aspect of the character.  We rate in Fu because Fu is the central dominant aspect of combat, and it makes a convienent yardstick to measure bad guys.  We can also translate a lot of other things into 'Fu Equivilents'. Weapons, say.  Note that we still have two types of weapons: Color weapons which are a part of the Fu that uses them, and Equipment Weapons, which have their own stats, typically being a single Fu point item.

But lets start at the beginning: Advantages.  Advantages are both more, and less, powerful than Fu.  Advantages always work, regardless, they are not damaged or burnt under normal circumstances.  On the other hand, they also can't absorb damage for you or grant techniques.  Having a 'combat' advantage is pretty weak if you can't back it up with a Fu.

On the other hand, outside of Combat, most Fu would be next to worthless. This is where Advantages come into their own: Non-combat gaming.  Advantages are where we start to get into meaningful questions like "How rich am I?' or 'Who do I know?' and things along those lines.  It also opens up lines of behavior for the character.  

Corresponding with the advantages is the Heroic Flaw, the disadvantage. While I intend for these to be largely self defined, I will have specific examples for the lazy to steal from. Every hero has his flaw, though the option to not take one (at the cost of one Advantage...) is available.  

The Flaw is still an 'in the works' concept.  Obviously it gives no 'benefit', that is it provides no 'point' for the player to use elsewhere, it simply exists. there is the idea of rewarding players for bringing their flaw to the table, though I'm not sure I want to use that.  

Some Flaws will be very much 'inverse' advantages. Fragile, for example, means the character is easily hurt, the opposite of Tough, and provides a penalty to Resistance rolls to avoid being hurt by an attack, or conversely a bonus to the enemy's roll to damage you.  Others are more 'soft', things like being a 'Fool for Love'... where the disadvantage is primarily roleplaying.

We haven't talked skills in this thread very much, and for good reason. Compared to the sexy sexy Fu, Skills seem superfluous. Yes and no. Skills, as conceived, do not directly influence combat. Certainly they can be tested in combat situations, but by themselves they are not meant for it.  Their purpose is all the other stuff.  We've established before, in other threads, the basic concept behind skills, but let's revisit for a second. Heroic characters are assumed to be reasonably competent with anything they could be even remotely expected to be competent in. That is: You always get a roll without penalty if there is a chance you could do it. No, you can't know the language and culture of that new alien speices that just appeared in game and is currently eating your head.  Certain advantages change this in various ways. A space listening post xenophile just might get that damn roll if he has an advantage that reflects that.

now, lets look at using a skill in combat. Let's say the character has been fighting this futuristic combat robot. he's exhausting his Fu, but he can't get through the Robot's rediculously powerful Resistance checks from it's armor.

But the character happens to have Engineering at 3. So he says "I use my engineering to find a weakspot in the Robot's armor". now he rolls his engineering against the Robot's Armor defence rating, not resistance. He has +3 to the roll from his skill, the Armor isn't nearly as defensive as it is resistant, so when he wins he can exhaust the robot's Armor 'Fu', making future attacks much more powerful as he just removed the most powerful Fu the enemy had against him.  Now, he can link that to an attack with a weapon or Fu attack as well, going for the weak point hit as part of the shot, allowing for cumulative bonuses. In this case the attack is rolled, successful, then the Engineering is rolled with bonuses to exhaust the armor, then he can try to roll damage, taking the cumulative successes of the attack and engineering check, hoping to exhaust another 'Fu' that the robot will put up to resist the damage now that the Armor is 'out of play'. Of course, if he fails that damage check, the Armor isn't necessarily exhausted either.... gambles.  But that got too complex, didn't it.

Now, social ratings might not continue to exist, being folded into Advantages, though it remains a useful topic. Ideally, Social points are rated into 'Lores' just like Fu. Only instead of 'attack' or what have you, you'll have 'network' or 'schmooze' points. Points in 'Find contact', for example. This doesn't exclude the possibility of adding techniques as you expand your socialness. Techniques like 'Find arms dealer anywhere', for example.

This is what makes up a character, this is how we define characters (fu is in there, yes).

Quote from: Spikenow, lets look at using a skill in combat. Let's say the character has been fighting this futuristic combat robot. he's exhausting his Fu, but he can't get through the Robot's rediculously powerful Resistance checks from it's armor.

But the character happens to have Engineering at 3. So he says "I use my engineering to find a weakspot in the Robot's armor". now he rolls his engineering against the Robot's Armor defence rating, not resistance. He has +3 to the roll from his skill, the Armor isn't nearly as defensive as it is resistant, so when he wins he can exhaust the robot's Armor 'Fu', making future attacks much more powerful as he just removed the most powerful Fu the enemy had against him.  Now, he can link that to an attack with a weapon or Fu attack as well, going for the weak point hit as part of the shot, allowing for cumulative bonuses. In this case the attack is rolled, successful, then the Engineering is rolled with bonuses to exhaust the armor, then he can try to roll damage, taking the cumulative successes of the attack and engineering check, hoping to exhaust another 'Fu' that the robot will put up to resist the damage now that the Armor is 'out of play'. Of course, if he fails that damage check, the Armor isn't necessarily exhausted either.... gambles.  But that got too complex, didn't it.

I'm still digesting, but...

I was scanning d20 Modern Saturday and I noticed something like this as a feat - so that someone could use their intelligence bonus as an attack bonus after studying the opponent for X rounds. Is it similar to that?

Quote from: James J SkachI'm still digesting, but...

I was scanning d20 Modern Saturday and I noticed something like this as a feat - so that someone could use their intelligence bonus as an attack bonus after studying the opponent for X rounds. Is it similar to that?

Not quite. I don't mean to use it as a 'specific rule' in the book, but to illustrate one possible way the skills could be used in combat.  In play the player and GM would have to agree that a skill could be used a give way, then the regular gamble is made.

Quote from: SpikeNot quite. I don't mean to use it as a 'specific rule' in the book, but to illustrate one possible way the skills could be used in combat.  In play the player and GM would have to agree that a skill could be used a give way, then the regular gamble is made.

So not a hard rule like a feat or something, but just a broader, general rule that says skills can be used to influence things other than those directly related to the skill in circumstances - to be determined by the participants?

Quote from: James J SkachSo not a hard rule like a feat or something, but just a broader, general rule that says skills can be used to influence things other than those directly related to the skill in circumstances - to be determined by the participants?

Essentially, yes.

I have determined a weakness that I need to resolve.

Right now the core idea works reasonably well (possibly even great) for fighting. Yay Fighting!!!

But there isn't much support for the more intellectual pursuits.   Baffling as it may seem to me, some folks seem to enjoy les confrontational characters.

You know, the guy that always plays the wizard? He's not going to want to play 'kung fu madness' unless it supports him. Worse, the guy playing the 'party medic' who avoids participating in the fights all together! Yeah, we all know he's crazy, but we still want his money... I mean... we want him to enjoy the game. Yeah, that's it.

Now, the Fu system is adapatable enough to support the wizard wanter, when we get into special effects and other advanced Fu lore and technique purchaces (what? You thought attack/defend and Damage/Resist were the only ways to define your Fu? This ain't no hip pocket game, son! This is SPIKE FU!)...

But we left the guy who doesn't really want Fu at all standing in the cold.

Now: character creation can fix a lot of sins in this regard. I had originally envisioned a system where the GM could set a fixed number of Fu points for his game and let it go at that: doesn't work for us here.

We need to let the Fu-less dude swap out his Fu for additional Advantages or Skills... or even freinds and buddies.... whatever he wants.

To further tickle his fancy, perhaps some sort of 'support Fu' that is less useful in combat (if at all) but lets him do over the top stuff. Chi Healing! Pressur point Massage! Seven Sages Lore Technique!


Great, I have stupid names. Now, I need to know what the fuck I intend to do with them....