deleted

How many different roleplaying games have you played?

The 3-rolls-game would be Das Schwarze Auge [The Dark Eye]. I've only heard of it by reputation but a few people around here might have played it.

D20 doesn't seem greatly workable for lots of mini-modifiers. You could have stats rated say 4-9, then add two of them together to get a D&D-scale derived score, maybe, but it adds more calculations to each skill check.
Or you could have modifiers ranging from -1 to +2. Sufficiently granular though that it might be almost replaceable with some sort of 'merit' system e.g. 'Strong' or 'Pretty' might be feats or advantages or whatever that give +1 to various checks and could be purchased up to twice. Conversely in cases like the guy trying to lockpick with 3 intelligence, that sort of thing would work well with a disadvantage system, since you could assign penalties however you wanted, and have it blow out where required. Like having 'hideous' be only -2 to fast talk but -6 to seduction say.

HarnMaster works fairly similarly to the elder scrolls game by the sound of it (uses the total of 3 stats as the base, then that's rolled against as d%).

deleted

Why not have the skill be the modifier to the attribute roll?  One Example is The Fantasy Trip, it has it's own issues, that uses 3d6 (mostly) instead of d20.

Have you looked at Castles & Crusades?  You might find that mechanic enlightening.

Have you also considered something besides d20?  A linear mechanic can have the stacking modifier problem.   One way I approach things is to write up the base % chance I'd like to see at every level of progression for a base situation.  (THIS IS KEY AS IT WILL GUIDE THE DESIGN) I then look at the numbers I will plug in and the mechanic to be used.  Then think of how you want bonuses to work, will they break that power scale and is there enough flexibility that use of magic item, spells, etc. will mean something but not break the power scale.

You may find design a lot easier if you don't wed yourself to the "sacred cows" of d20 and stat ranges from 7-18.

deleted

As you mention dead simple and customizable can be incompatible.  

By modifier to attribute roll I mean you use the attribute number that you are rolling against, say a DEX of 15, and skill acts as a modifier to it.  For example a Skill of 1 adds +1 to DEX for roll purposes.

Part of the design idea is how you want the classic character variables of Level, Skill and Attributes to interact.  Some systems drop one or two.  I think a good system uses two and subsumes one into the others.

Like TFT drops the whole Level idea as it is subsumed in Skills.   Attributes dominate in TFT and Talents serve as both skill modifiers but also "Perks/Feats."  OD&D is all about Level, skills being prepackaged into level and class and attributes having little impact.  AD&D about Level and Attribute, skills being prepackaged into level and class.  3rd edition on seems to use Skill, Level, Attributes, Class and Feats.  I'm not sure exactly how it works but think Level gives you Skills.

Need to step away to make dinner...will finish my thoughts in a bit as this is exactly what I went through for my own home system.




I'd have to look up C&C more but I believe the system is something like attribute (or bonus) + level = "skill"
You choose a prime, secondary and other attributes which basically make it easier for certain tasks in your prime versus secondary.  Please don't flame me if I'm off too much, this is from memory but when I looked at it remember how impressed I was how it wrapped, level and class together with attributes to give a skill like system.  It's worth looking for free explanations of the system.

deleted

Correct me if I am wrong but I think by customizable you mean the feats and classes.   My view is D&D 3+ add way more complexity than was needed.  Tens if not over a hundred classes, and hundreds of feats.  A byzantine mish mash.

What I like in customization is choosing what your character is good at and choosing how you improve.  It can be in the context of a class-based system, I prefer flexible broad classes instead of many specific classes (even if you can move between them) and certainly prefer it to free-from multi-classing.  Frankly in the later two class quickly becomes meaningless and really these are systems trying to be skill based but with all the draw backs of too many skills and none of the benefits.


That's probably beside the point at the moment.  I'll address this first:

QuoteAnd that 'dead simple' game I mentioned is d20 roll-over. And looking at its 'fifth edition', characters can start off with a +4 modifier to 2 different attributes! Of course, then you'd only have a +1 in the other three (the game requires attributes to range from +1 to +4).

The first thing in a mechanic for me is to think about what I call dynamic range.  By that I mean how many meaningful steps are there on your resolution mechanic.  On a d20 that is basically 20 steps, in practice less as in a roll over system you are not going to have every PC start off with needing a natural 20 to succeed.  Now 20 is pretty good.  d20 is a linear mechanics so a +5 is five times as good as a +1.  (Compared to a non linear, for example 2d10 added together, where a +1 can mean a lot or a little and there are diminishing returns on large modifiers)

Now let's look at your modifiers.  They decrease dynamic range or can make one character far more powerful than another causing players to focus on modifiers.  For example, a +1 to hit in AD&D is like +1 level for a Fighter and like +3 levels for a Magic User.  So Attributes that give +1, +2 or more strongly shift the power curve.  That can be all well and good if that is built into adventure design and expectations.  However, it can make standard characters "unrealistically" weak or starting character's with bonuses "unrealistically" strong.  Add in feats and magic item bonuses etc. and the base number becomes meaningless, it all becomes about the modifiers and adventures (to be challenging) are then designed to take into account those level 3 characters are really more like level 6 without modifiers.  Sound familiar from D&D 3+ (it's even in AD&D actually just not so straight forward)?  All of a sudden modifier items and Attributes become integral to play and they easily swamp the base number used to determine a hit, for example.

To me a d20 system that can give a +4 out of the gate is going to be horribly imbalanced, especially if you get only a +1 per level, that is like 4 levels and has all the dangers of a one-trick pony system.  It also has what I call an all-or-nothing problem when adventuring.  That is with a d20 and AC or defensive rating system you end up in situations where one character can dominate and low level characters are useless on high level adventures.  This derives form the all or nothing d20 mechanic.  Low levels (and/or low modifier characters) versus high levels (high modifier characters) have maybe a 1 in 20 chance to hit, while the high level has a 20 in 20 chance to hit them.  Now this may well be desired but it needs to be recognized.

For example, give a fighter a +4, which probably equates to 4 levels.  Any combat encounter that would be challenging for him is going to be near impossible for non-modifier fighter or non-fighter type.  Now you can always mix in low level and high level creatures to address this.


Not sure what else to say.  I'm not a big fan of the d20 statistics unless you really make a +1 modifier something big in getting, nothing more than a +2 to start and then only if you maxed some Attribute at the serious expense of others.  I've found more success with non-linear (I like 2d10 added together more than 2d6 or 3d6) or more old miniature war game (now called dice pool type) where you get a die to roll per "level" of creature and succeed on a 1 for example.

Here are some original systems you really need to look at the mechanics of, I'm sure you can find explanations for free on-line,

(1) The Fantasy Trip or it's more recent re-boots.  (Very good on customization, adds in skill, ditches level and can give a gritty feel.  Down side, can have dynamic range issues and one-trick-pony issues...both fixable.)
(2) Dragon Warriors  (A very nice class system with "skills" very broad ones that are tied to class.  (Great dynamic range, no one-trick-pony problems, but not very customizable out of the box)
(3) Castles & Crusades
(4) Runequest / BRP  (Nothing really different than a d20 mechanic but much more fine scaled +1% modifiers possible; good to see other ways it can be done)
(5) Traveler  (a 2D6, 3D6 type system that is heavily Attribute and Skill focused.  It ahs limited dynamic range but it is not really a level progression type game, it is more you are good right out of the gate but don't rapidly improve)

Optional, but can broaden your horizons
(5) Chainmail or any old d6 based war game where "level" = dice = power.
(6) Atomic Highway (My favorite simple (and non-wonky w.r.t. odds), but with depth.  It is more you are good out-of-the gate so it has poor dynamic range)

Quote from: BlackHeart;944968D&D 3 doesn't have levels factor directly into skills (unlike they seem to fourth, and I think fifth). You gain a number of 'skill points' that is determined by your class and intelligence modifier. You can then spend these in a point-buy way to increase your rank in certain skills. At first level you can put up to 4 points in a skill (at first level you also get quadrupel the number of skill points you normally would at level up to compensate). Also, all skills are rated as either 'class skills' or 'cross class skills'. Which skills are which is determined by your class. A cross-class skill can only have half the rank a class skill has, and also costs double points to increase. For example, you can only have up to a rank of 2 in a cross-class skill, but it'll cost you 4 skill points. Also, you can only increase them by 1 rank every other level. So that skill won't get to rank 3 until your character is level 3. A class skill will be rank 6 by then, assuming you invest points in it.

I like this system, since it makes it easy for your character to change course as they level up. You can have a rogue turn his life around and become a paladin, and thus focus on paladin skills (well, paladins normally don't do skill checks much) while progressing no further in rogue skills. Though I admit, many of the rogue's class skills may as well be features of the class since many of them are only class skills to rogues and no one else (at least when it comes to the standard classes).

Though I do admit, it is kinda complicated. Pathfinder simplifies a bit it by changing how class and cross-class skills work. You don't get quadruple points at first level, and you can invest in class and cross-class skills equally (though you can only put 1 rank into a skill per level). The only difference is that if you invest in a class skill, you get a free +3 bonus to that skill's rank. Note that I don't if you get this benefit if you later level up in a different class and invest in one of that class's class skills, or if you already had ranks in one of them to begin with.

Note that in both systems, you can save up points and dump them into a class skill in a class you intend on taking later. If you're high level and haven't invested in a certain skill, you do have the option of just dumping all your points into it to get it up to where your other skills are. That is a very common thing to do.

I like the principle of this approach.  You may not know this was first done in The Fantasy Trip as far as I can tell. (from memory of those early years and interest over the years)  You had Warrior and Wizards, that's it.  Some skills fell under one and some under the other and you had the double cost kind of thing for cross-class skills.

You hit the nail on the head, the problem with the D&D 3+ system is having too many classes, that is slicing things too thin and creating all sorts of unintended synergies. I think the key to that approach is having very few classes which really serve as just broad cost umbrellas.  However if you can switch between them freely what is the point of having them?  I just switch to the class I want to get cheaper skills then later switch back.  Another way, and this may be built in, you could require a minimum level in a certain skill to buy certain skills OR even a minimum level in more than one class.  With just 4 base classes you could have 4 "pure" class approaches plus 12 dual mixed class approaches that fall out of having level minimums for certain skills.  All in all, if you go this way I'd stick with very few classes and let the customization and complexity emerge from the combinations.

In a way you could ditch level all together and just allow players to turn xp directly into skill points (that's TFT).  You get a one-trick-pony problem if a player just keeps improving one skill.  


Or instead of levels giving you skills or skill points, how about skills give you levels?

That is my idea to provide the flexibility of buying any skill you want and balancing the well rounded character against the one-trick-pony.  That is, xp is used to buy skills.  To gain a "level" in a class you need a certain constellation of skills at certain levels.  When you do that you level up and get to choose level benefits like hit points, a better save, etc.  In practice players buy skills to level in certain classes but may buy one or two outside this or push combat up a bit but not too much as the level benefits counter balance the advantages of just one really good skill.

deleted

Quote from: BlackHeart;944976....The randomness. At early levels, a complete novice really isn't any better than someone trying to specialize in a field. I mean, at level 1 a fighter has just a +1 to hit. But at the higher levels, your skills and other modifiers are so huge you may as well not even roll, and if you didn't invest in a skill or w/e you may as well not even try since the DCs at that level so high. Essentially, the die becomes meaningless and the game just involves stat comparison. And at the low levels, the die determines everything, honestly everyone may as well have the exact same stats. Especcially since on many things you get to 'take 20' anyway when you're not in a combat situation. You can literally invest 1 point in open locks and be as good at it as the rogue just because that and a dex of 14 is sufficient to open the locks you will typically encounter.

This is a good example of what can happen with all-or-nothing.  The modifiers swamp the mechanics so they make things meaningless, yet without them you can do next to nothing.  The sweet spot is small so in effect you have little dynamic range.

QuoteAnd vancian magic. I just hate vancian magic. I always preferred sorcerers even though they're weaker than wizards just because I prefer the way they work over how wizards work.

That's always the easiest thing to fix. I use non-vancian (or a bit of a mix really these days).  Been doing so since about 1984 and it works well.  The first version in 1984 didn't but now 30+ years later it works.

QuoteThe huge number of selectable races. I mean, they even released a supplement for monster races. Though I do think the races are a bit overly complicated. And like I said, I hate ECLs.

I like selection as long as it works for your campaign.  I do think the mechanics impact should be small so you choose species based on role playing more than anything else.

QuoteYou're not forced to stick with what your character started off as. You're free to change course whenever you want.

You know this comment only makes sense if you view the rigid class based system as the norm.  If the character is more defined by the set of skills this really is never an issue, as class is just a lite guiding principle instead of a defining one.

QuoteMulticlassing honestly reduces the need to have a huge list of classes. On a nwn server I used to play on, there were a group of people who played pirates, which they accomplished simply by multi-classing as fighter/rogues. Honestly though, it could've been used more extensively. A paladin could've simply have been a fighter/cleric.

Exactly.  A few pieces combined well is all you need. It will work better, feel better and actually allow players more flexibility on just what fighter/cleric combo they want.  If you do this, I'd suggest think outside the D&D box for "core classes" making them broad, as the combinations can give you the D&D archtypes.  For example I would not make rouge a core class, but instead have it arise from another combination.

QuoteSome of the classes have a huge amount of customization to them. Though some do it better than others obviously. You're forced to be a melee fighter if you go fighter, simply because archery is underpowered. Clerics are different depending on the domains they choose. And there's like 5 different ways to build rogues. Pathfinder fixes some of the other classes in this regard somewhat. For example, sorcerers now get to choose bloodlines which helps differentiate them more from each other and from wizards.

On magic you can provide flexibility and make for domain specialty if you make spells (or spell levels and areas) like skills, that is you have to buy them.

How is this for “core classes” with ties to classic D&D attributes and a general view of Mind-Body-Soul.
Strength [Fighter] [Body]
Dexterity [Athlete] [Body]
Constitution [Survivor] [Body]
Intelligence [Thinker][Mind]
Wisdom [Advisor][Soul and/or Mind]
Charisma [Charmer][Soul]

That’s just using D&D Attributes.  An approach that is more S.P.E.C.I.A.L. may work.   For example,  situational awareness (Perception) could be an Attribute as well as Magic.  For example Magic + Intelligence = Wizard; Magic + Wisdom = Cleric; Magic + Wisdom + Fighter = Paladin.

I think if you have 6 core classes and allow combinations of 2 and 3, you get 56 “classes” in the end.  Add in just 2 or 3 skill choices per core class and you have hundreds of distinct combinations, all from 6 core pieces and you can organize it all well.  That’s just a D&D Attribute approach.

deleted

Quote from: BlackHeart;944770I'm trying to put together my own tabletop rpg. Yeah, I've been trying to do that for years, and got nowhere. But I have also failed to find an rpg I like.

As for that my system is like, essentially I'm just re-doing D&D 3.X, fixing all the issues I had with it. I wouldn't call it a retroclone though, and honestly aside for the way attributes work (the list of attributes isn't even the same) and d20+modifier mechanic, there's really no D&D in it.

Right now, I'm having two issues.

The biggest one is skills. I'd like to have skills be determined by two attributes rather than one. I had an epiphany a day or two ago that that would make more sense. For example, why should you be able to pick locks if you have an intelligence of 3? Even if you had the skill points, there's no way you would have enough sense to do something like pick a lock which is essentially a puzzle. But at the same time, you can't do something that requires a high amount of dexterity without, well dexterity.

Ultimately, in the real world, training and experience count for more than natural talent. I'd be tempted to just give a minor bonus or penalty to certain skills based on the relevant attributes. To take you example of lockpicking, maybe a +1 bonus to the roll if INT is 16 or higher and a +1 bonus if DEX is 12 or higher (and a commensurate -1 penalty for particularly low attributes), although I've also never thought of manual dexterity having much to do with D&D's Dexterity, which has always tended to be used to represent agility, coordination, and reaction speed. OTherwise you have the issue of all D&D acrobats also being master pianists. Though your "finesse" may mean something slightly different.

In the Outlaws of the Water Margin game, attributes/skills are divided into a list of aptitudes (natural talents) and skills, each with a bonus or penalty, and when a roll is made all applicable modifiers are added together and applied to a dice roll. This tends to mean the specifics of a situation are brought into play more often.

QuoteAnd while I'm talking about attributes, in my system they are strength, resilience, finesse, logic, intuition, and luck. Basically, I fused charisma and wisdom together, since well everyone saw charisma as a dump stat anyway, and it factored into virtually nothing anyway. Though that did make intuition a bit op so I moved a few things to logic (such as willpower). And besides, I could never wrap my head around wisdom anyway.

Personally, I've always found the division of strength and Constitution ("resilience", "endurance" etc) a bit odd, as they both seem to be different aspects of the same thing, whereas the lack of a Size stat bugged me, since that tends to apply more often, but thats neither here nor there. I'm not sure what logic has to do with willpower, but that may simply be nomenclature. I'm sure you could find a better term to represent both concepts. The difference between INT and WIS is easily explained in the different between intelligence vs common sense. I'm sure you've known people, or come across characters in media that were of the "absent minded professor" sort: high intellect,but lacking in common sense; a lot of "book knowledge" but very little practical knowledge, and vice-versa...the uneducated farmer type that has a ton of common sense and practical knowledge, but little to no academic acumen. I also thin Charisma being a "dump stat" is largely through the fault of bad GMs. Practically speaking, its an incredibly important ability.

QuoteAnyway, I'm not too keen on just adding the modifiers to two attributes to the roll. Like I said, the system is d20+modifier. And attributes range from 7 to 18 (ignoring racial modifiers), and yes they do give D&D-like modifiers, though I'm thinking about just dropping the main stat number and just using modifiers ranging from -2 to +4.

There was an iteration of the 3x rules that did that: True 20. Personally, I've always thought using the D20 rather than the 3D6 roll made very little sense in regards to attribute checks with the original number range