Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;843076How about letting players choose the first "skill/class/ability/feat" and roll the second one randomly? (Plus 3d6 in order.)
Then a player interested in a cleric can choose which part of "cleric-ness" is more important to him, the divine spells or the fighting undead angle.

Right now I'm using a conversation based character creation system.  One player asked to go random.  I see no reason a hybrid approach wouldn't work great.

QuoteBut Nathan's game is producing characters that are good at two things

3 attributes and 2 abilities is just not enough for rawma, regardless of how many possible combinations there are and regardless of how the limited nature of the design actually opens up options during actual play.  Check out his tantrum post for more info.

So I wanted to revisit Pundit's take on the problems of a classless approach.  I'm going to give them some more thought, but I've listed them here for now.  The point in doing this is not to have some argument about whether or not a given point has merit but to ensure the negative aspects are simply not present when actually sitting down and playing.

I'm sure some of these items are things that just don't follow or are based on certain types of classless approaches.  For example, points based GURPS vs RQ2 classless characters.  Similarly I imagine some just won't be about an OSR classless game unless you go classless by bolting on a particular kind of character creation.

• potential for min-maxing abuse
• longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes
• melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.
• not playing Archetypal characters so you can game the system.  
• Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;
• classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.

So that's what my future posts will be dealing with.

EDIT:  Also I have decided that for my games ritual magic can be performed by anyone and the key concern for any ritual performer is whether or not they can actually do the rite and pay the cost demanded by the magic.  For example part of a ritual might include a feat of great strength like bending a bar into a ring.  Another might require blood sacrifice.  Another might require chanting the names of twenty three of the target's ancestors, and so forth.

Quote from: apparition13;843119So Bilbo...

Bilbo wasn't useless in a straight up fight. He just didn't like killing, but ask some giant spiders about his nimbleness with a blade and thrown stones.

Quoteand thinking on it more, not when you include fairy tales. Then you also have the clever hero, the one who wins based on wits. Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Puss in Boots and the like, and maybe even Bilbo.

Fairy tales are a whole different matter from epic legends. I said "heroes". Think Iliad and Odissey, Ivan Tzarevitch, Mabinogion and the like.
The two genres have radically different "target auditories".

Quote from: NathanIW;843137You're probably right.  He seems very dedicated to ways to mechanically differentiate characters to a great degree and having something in place to ensure characters are balanced against one another so no one feels like a side kick and everyone at the table has their niche protected.

I don't really care one way or another, but I should point out that how differentiated the characters are mechanically and how balanced is totally orthogonal to the question of classes or no classes.
Risus is classless and not much differentiation is going on. Hero is classless and differentiated. OD&D is class-based and has next to no differentiation, while the Dragon Age RGP is class-based and has a decent amount of differentiation.
Do I really need to give examples of game balance? Suffice it to say, classes and classless systems alike can be balanced or not.

Quote5e, 3.x/PF, and 4E all accomplish that quite well, but I'm not sure his concerns are relevant to an OSR thread.

3e/PF actually fail miserably at the "balanced so nobody feels like a sidekick" part. Other than that, yes, I agree it's not relevant to the OSR thread.

QuoteI want all characters who are appropriate to the types of adventuring the game is about to be sufficiently similarly skilled in a variety of tasks that they can be handled by the referee through some sort of cveck or ruling modified by attributes.

Funny, but T&T and Fantasy AGE both accomplish that much.

QuoteI think rawma would prefer a game where each character is mechanically distinct even in terms of their eyesight, ability to climb, what they know about animals, what they know about history, etc.,.  And one where all that is codified into a skill system in advance.

He should try Artesia, Sengoku or Legend of the Wulin, then (assuming you're right). I like them all, personally, but when I want an OSR game, they're not what I'm looking for!
It's really that simple. Larsdangly suggested the idea of a classless OSR game. Me and other people said it's a great idea. A whole bunch of people tried to explain how classes are a sacred cow that shouldn't be killed, and how other systems that aren't OSR do exactly the same thing...except in a different way.
My answer is two-fold.
First, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill Buddha!" If anyone doesn't know where this is from, google it.
Second, I have already plenty of games that do it in the ways specified about 5e, and the like. I don't want a new version of what I already have, and especially don't want the baggage that's coming with it (like D&D 5e's heavy-duty combat system).
Admittedly, I could design my own, probably by stripping Fantasy AGE to its core and making it classless. Maybe I will do that in the end.

Quote from: AsenRG;843161.Risus is classless and not much differentiation is going on. Hero is classless and differentiated. OD&D is class-based and has next to no differentiation, while the Dragon Age RGP is class-based and has a decent amount of differentiation.

I think one of the foundational ideas of this thread is that lowering differentiation actually increases options at the table.  And taking D&D and going "build a bear" with the class features might be a means of accomplishing this.

So far it's working for me.  The all weapons do d6 of OD&D definitely opens up weapon choices based on more practical matters like reach and fragility.  Similarly I've been finding allowing everyone to use whatever Armour they want with it causing magic use to be less efficient and its weight and noise being a concern has been working.

Quote3e/PF actually fail miserably at the "balanced so nobody feels like a sidekick" part.

I've played in a very CharOped game where everyone had huge amounts of system mastery.  You pretty much have to know how to game character options to avoid the pitfall.  I don't play those games anymore, but I suspect it would be easy to become a sidekick in a more casual approach to those games.  3.x, for example, did have intentional trap choices for feats.

QuoteOther than that, yes, I agree it's not relevant to the OSR thread.

This is the crux of it.

QuoteFunny, but T&T and Fantasy AGE both accomplish that much.

I think I have a copy of T&T somewhere.  I'll give it another look for ideas.  I don't know much about Fantasy AGE but will search for info on it.

QuoteLarsdangly suggested the idea of a classless OSR game. Me and other people said it's a great idea. A whole bunch of people tried to explain how classes are a sacred cow that shouldn't be killed, and how other systems that aren't OSR do exactly the same thing...except in a different way.

It has been a strange thread.

QuoteMy answer is two-fold.
First, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill Buddha!" If anyone doesn't know where this is from, google it.
Second, I have already plenty of games that do it in the ways specified about 5e, and the like. I don't want a new version of what I already have, and especially don't want the baggage that's coming with it (like D&D 5e's heavy-duty combat system).
Admittedly, I could design my own, probably by stripping Fantasy AGE to its core and making it classless. Maybe I will do that in the end.

If someone wanted to play an OSR type classless game right now I'd point them to Microlite74 Sword & Sorcery edition.  It technically has two classes, but it's easy enough to drop the sorcerer and make magic something you only find during play (and largely the perview of evil sorcerers and demons).

Quote from: Phillip;837384You're looking for kludge in all the wrong places, in D&D eyes hoping for traces of meta-system love ...

I don't think it makes much sense to dismember the game and try to patch it together as a "menu" as if everything should work smoothly without the context.  It's much better, if you want something so radically different, to build from the ground up (or start with a meta-system in the first place, such as Champions).

Hand-tailoring whatever options one wants -- a variation on a class, for instance -- gets the job done efficiently and well for those occasions when it's called for. That's why such variations proliferate!

People who don't dig the old D&D framework enough to use it move on to something else -- RuneQuest, Hero System, Rolemaster, GURPS, Pathfinder, whatever -- and get on with playing.

Champions/HERO System and especially Fantasy Hero was OSR before that was even a thing.  It has the same 6 primary characteristics with essentially the same scale (0-20).  A starting character has a base BODY characteristic of 10 (somewhat equivalent to a beginning D&D character's first dice of hit points being maxed).  The fact that the primary combat resolution system happens to work from a "to the stunned/knocked-out" first and "to the death" secondary is a bonus depending on how you look at it.  Classes and Levels from a strict sense are just pre-mapped advancement paths tied to the Hit-Point system.  I agree with those who said that getting rid of Classes practically demands getting rid of Levels as well.

The real irony here is that I believe that HERO character creation can benefit greatly when the Player goes the extra mile by creating the character they 'can' to begin with and what they envision that character becoming in the future and sharing this with the GM.  It doesn't have to be contract set in stone but it is a useful way to start the discussion before XP is given out.  Everyone basically creates their own custom "Class" as a result.  Archetypes exist in HERO but they work in a similar fashion to the base characteristics of the Amber Diceless RPG since everything about them is relative.  A character is only defined as a 'Brick/Fighter' or 'Rogue/Speedster' when compared to other characters in the setting.  To work well, the GM should be involved in all PC advancement.  The D&D family of games seems like it tries to automate the advancement process to the point that the DM is not needed which is where the disconnect seems to occur.

Alright.  First up is potential for min max abuse.

This can be a problem if discovering meaningful differences in power level of different combination of character options is a viable tactic.

I believe there are six strategies that can work well at ensuring this doesn't become a problem.

The first is random or semi random character generation.  It's hard to choose a combination of abilities when you don't choose some or all of them.

The second is a conversation between the referee and the player about what the character is like and the referee selects the options based on what they describe.  While it's certainly possible for someone to figure out how the conversation will map to different options in order to target their desired combination, they will have to come up with a coherent description of their character in order to do so.  The player will also largely be denied playing a resource allocation game by spending points as they'll, like in play, be limited to using natural language to describe things.  Then questions can also be designed to integrate the setting and appropriate character options right into them.

The third is to not have broken combinations.  The more differentiation in the game the more likely the dials and jobs of the character can be set to maximize the power level of a given character.  Furthermore the fewer the options the easier it is to survey all the possible combinations for problems.

The fourth strategy iis to have a variety of threats and challenges in the game.  A character optimized to do X might be really bad at Y or Z.  Similarly if you have regular challenges that cannot be overcome with a game mechanic, the minmaxing abuse becomes a waste of time.  Part of this is not having safety rails.  There should be no expectation of level appropriate encounters except in that ddelving deeper into the dungeon or going further and further into the wilderness increases the likelihood of death and danger.  We know from decades of play that the right sort of challenges add threats ccan make play with characters of different levels work, so accommodating fluctuations in starting character power should represent no real challenge.

The fifth is to concentrate on description and using natural language in play.  And keeping the responsibility for system calls entirely in the hands of the referee or judge.  The players describe what the characters do and the referee can call for die rolls as needed or desired.  Minmaxing abuse derives much of its power from environments or games where the players can invoke mechanics or appeal to the system.  If a player ever starts talking system talk and rolling dice without being asked the judge can simply disregard it and ask them to describe what they do.  The player should get their traction in the game not by using the rules but by paying attention to and making description.

The sixth is the classic advice given to judges and referees over the decades.  That they should remove, reverse or disallow things that are making the game not work.  If a given combination somehow slips through the previous four strategies, it should be house ruled away on a case by case basis. Ideally this shouldn't ever occur, but defining the roles of the participants is part of the game, so it's okay to explicitly give the judge the authority to deal with problems.  It's also possible that this type of game is not what a given player is looking for and it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to identify such mismatches in expectations before they become a problem and for the referee to explain what the particular game at hand is about.

Quote from: NathanIW;843163I think I have a copy of T&T somewhere.  I'll give it another look for ideas.  I don't know much about Fantasy AGE but will search for info on it.

It's the game Green Ronin used for their Dragon Age RPG. I call it "3d6 D&D done right".

QuoteIt has been a strange thread.

I see nothing strange in it. It was totally predictable that something like that would happen, so I tried to be as polite as I could.
It just didn't help much people wanting a classless OSR game.

QuoteIf someone wanted to play an OSR type classless game right now I'd point them to Microlite74 Sword & Sorcery edition.  It technically has two classes, but it's easy enough to drop the sorcerer and make magic something you only find during play (and largely the perview of evil sorcerers and demons).

I'll check it again. I've read it, but I don't remember what exactly made me decide it's based on 3.5 a bit too much for my tastes.

Quote from: NathanIW;843177Alright.  First up is potential for min max abuse.

This can be a problem if discovering meaningful differences in power level of different combination of character options is a viable tactic.

(snipped)

It's also possible that this type of game is not what a given player is looking for and it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to identify such mismatches in expectations before they become a problem and for the referee to explain what the particular game at hand is about.

In fact, I believe that if it's a viable tactic, it's obviously the game we wanted to play! Otherwise, we'd have houseruled it away if it wasn't, right? (In my case, high rules mastery is expected, so stuff rarely surprises us).

But yes, some people are looking for a game where character building mastery is rewarded, or maybe a game where character building skill doesn't matter. Neither one is an issue. Both can become an issue when this isn't the game we want to play.
I find the best solution to be the seventh option: the GM talking with the player, and I mean with every single player, about the expected approach to character optimisation. Do that, and inform them what you intend to run. If they don't want to play that, you can point them to another game.
And I seriously mean "point them to another game". As long as you have a network of contacts with other GMs, you should be able to help. And who knows, maybe the next game you run would be like the one that player was looking for?

Anyway, this went so far up over the edge that separates classes from classless systems, I'm not sure why we're even discussing it;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;843209It's the game Green Ronin used for their Dragon Age RPG. I call it "3d6 D&D done right".

I grabbed the quick start rules for Dragon Age and I think I've seen people play it on youtube.

QuoteI see nothing strange in it. It was totally predictable that something like that would happen, so I tried to be as polite as I could.
It just didn't help much people wanting a classless OSR game.

I must admit that I did find the differing priorities of play and misconceptions about the foundational idea of the thread (limited design = greater options during actual play) help me rapidly clarify what I want out of my game and put some not yet articulated aspects into words.

QuoteI'll check it again. I've read it, but I don't remember what exactly made me decide it's based on 3.5 a bit too much for my tastes.

Microlite20 definitely has a more 3.5 feel.  It has the universal rules mechanic of stat modifier + skill modifer + d20 vs DC.  I ran about half a session with Microlite20 as a base before I called for a break and went with M74 and the Swords & Wizardry monster book.  I just didn't need the stat + skill roll vs DC to figure out checks and whatnot.

Oh.  I remember now.  The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe.  Every second level you pick from a list of stuff.  I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74.  Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.  

The way to get magic into the hands of everyone is to have trappings.  The wizard was reading from a scroll or book.  Or waving a wand about.  Or an orb or clay tablet or whatever.  The players can just get their hands on the trapping and describe how they are making it work.  While the NPC evil sorcerers might be more practiced and get effects reliably, there's probably some great fun in characters just trying their best and getting crazy or dangerous effects as a result.

QuoteI find the best solution to be the seventh option: the GM talking with the player, and I mean with every single player, about the expected approach to character optimisation. Do that, and inform them what you intend to run. If they don't want to play that, you can point them to another game.
And I seriously mean "point them to another game". As long as you have a network of contacts with other GMs, you should be able to help. And who knows, maybe the next game you run would be like the one that player was looking for?

It's been a slog networking here.  I have about thirty people I can blast an email out to saying "Joe is looking for a game where..." and I tend to end up with a waiting list for everything I run, but actually getting some of the online social networking going has been rough.  There have been some issues about moronic store loyalty and edition warring and all that and I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who end up finding players and joining games through such avenues are the type of people who are left over while all the functional types have just been happily gaming.

QuoteAnyway, this went so far up over the edge that separates classes from classless systems, I'm not sure why we're even discussing it;)!

It's very much like Pundit has issues with how some class free games have done things and then extrapolated that all class free games must work like that.

I think having less differentiation solves almost all of his issues.  I'm going to keep posting about each one of them as they are real problems with some classless games.  I just don't think they're real problems with all classless games and especially not ones based on OSR D&Ds.

The second issue Pundit raised was longer character-creation times from a glut of options and beancounting point-expenditure processes.

The first and obvious strategy for avoiding this pitful is... don't have a points system.  No beancounting.  No trying to eek out the 7th point you need to buy an advantage.  "I could take an extra level of drug addiction or maybe a single point sleep disorder..."  How about instead we don't bother with any of that?

The second thing to deal with is a glut of options.  One of the foundational notions of this thread is that limiting classes opens up options during actual play.  So again, we can to bypass this pitfall through the magic of non participation in the problem.  We can keep the options few in number.

As AsenRG talked about, we're dealing with an axis of differentiation that is actually orthogonal to class vs class free.  One of the hallmarks of OD&D is low differentiation.  Larsdangly put it so well that I decided to make it my forum signature.  So if we want less differentiation in order to maximize the available options to be described in natural language during play, we'll get the side benefit of fast character creation.

My sixth and most recent player was the longest in terms of character creation.  I started up the conversation method and every question I asked was met with a "what do you mean by that?" and "what are you getting at by asking that?" and "how should I answer that in a way that makes sense with the setting material?" until another player said that he could literally say anything he wanted.  That if something he came up with didn't fit with the game, we'd all just talk it out right there.  Then three minutes later he had his character.  So instead of taking two or three minutes, we took about 6 minutes.

On the opposite side of the spectrum was the player who wanted random.  So about a minute later he had the idea that his character was physically strong and had some experience as a mob enforcer and had recently received a vision from the gods that it was time to turn his life around and help rather than hurt people.  STR +1 DEX 0 MIND 0 Fighting and Divine Blessing.  AC 11 + armor bonus  HP 5  Spell Points 3.

I remember some versions of D&D having starting equipment packages that can also heavily speed up the initial shopping spree that sometimes happens in those games.  Package A, pick the one item of choice, pick your weapon, roll 3d10 or whatever for left over money.  Get playing.

No points buy.  No huge list of options (keep them small and iconic).  Keep the early D&D strengths of fast character generation.

Quote from: NathanIW;843223I grabbed the quick start rules for Dragon Age and I think I've seen people play it on youtube.

Almost there. Will Wheaton has been running his campaign with the Fantasy Age rules, which is like the core rulebook without the Dragon Age setting:).

QuoteI must admit that I did find the differing priorities of play and misconceptions about the foundational idea of the thread (limited design = greater options during actual play) help me rapidly clarify what I want out of my game and put some not yet articulated aspects into words.

If there was no use in forum posts, I'd have left forums behind already.

QuoteMicrolite20 definitely has a more 3.5 feel.  It has the universal rules mechanic of stat modifier + skill modifer + d20 vs DC.  I ran about half a session with Microlite20 as a base before I called for a break and went with M74 and the Swords & Wizardry monster book.  I just didn't need the stat + skill roll vs DC to figure out checks and whatnot.

Oh.  I remember now.  The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe.  Every second level you pick from a list of stuff.  I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74.  Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.  

The way to get magic into the hands of everyone is to have trappings.  The wizard was reading from a scroll or book.  Or waving a wand about.  Or an orb or clay tablet or whatever.  The players can just get their hands on the trapping and describe how they are making it work.  While the NPC evil sorcerers might be more practiced and get effects reliably, there's probably some great fun in characters just trying their best and getting crazy or dangerous effects as a result.

That's interesting. I'm doing something quite similar in my Silent Legions-Tekumel crossover (and you don't want to know what the rules are, as they're best described as an amalgam of whatever I've found useful).

QuoteIt's been a slog networking here.  I have about thirty people I can blast an email out to saying "Joe is looking for a game where..." and I tend to end up with a waiting list for everything I run, but actually getting some of the online social networking going has been rough.  There have been some issues about moronic store loyalty and edition warring and all that and I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the people who end up finding players and joining games through such avenues are the type of people who are left over while all the functional types have just been happily gaming.

Online networking is always interesting, not always in the positive sense. Then again, my opinion is that it's very much worth it.

QuoteIt's very much like Pundit has issues with how some class free games have done things and then extrapolated that all class free games must work like that.

Well, I can't speak for Pundit's thought processes. To me, it looked like he had some problems with players.

QuoteI think having less differentiation solves almost all of his issues.  I'm going to keep posting about each one of them as they are real problems with some classless games.  I just don't think they're real problems with all classless games and especially not ones based on OSR D&Ds.

On this, we agree. Just keep in mind that what seems like a problem to you might well be the reason some groups are playing;).
It's a refreshing thought, and helps us from feeling too self-important, in my experience:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;843232Almost there. Will Wheaton has been running his campaign with the Fantasy Age rules, which is like the core rulebook without the Dragon Age setting:).

I haven't been able to find nearly as much about that and don't see an equivalent to the quick start rules yet.  

QuoteWell, I can't speak for Pundit's thought processes. To me, it looked like he had some problems with players.

I think you might be on to something.  For example, his next criticism was:

melange characters that end up looking like nothing and symbolizing nothing.

I've played my share of classless games.  From GURPS and Fudge to SLA Industries to some White Wolf games, loads of Call of Cthulhu, RQ and various d100 games and others and I have never, ever, ever encountered what he's talking about here.

It really does look like a problem that might be idiosyncratic to a handful of players that I've never encountered.  I encounter the opposite.  Players that comb the rules for character creation in an attempt to find a character that is more special.  That really look like something during play.

The only thing I'm going to take from his concern is that the elements need to be sufficiently iconic.  So that if someone ends up with any two of them they'll actually be something that their character is about.

Which brings us to not playing Archetypal characters so you can game the system.

This strikes me as a hybrid of the concerns over minmaxing abuse and the characters who don't symbolize anything.

I think the way to avoid this pitfall is to identify what archetypes you want present and make sure they arise from combining different character elements.  A while back I had three randomly generated characters and identified their archetypes in Jungian (or perhaps post-Jungian) terms.  The rebel.  The explorer.  The shaman.  The hero.  There are many more and they are easy to identify as they tend to really grab with people and speak to them.

If you reduce it to two or three archetypes out of fantastic fiction like fighting man, sorcerer and expert (even if the expert is debatable) it becomes even easier.  The base adventurer competency takes care of the fighting man.  If that's not enough there's fighting and archery and athletics that can be appropriate as well.  And having three magic options takes care of the sorcerer type character.  The four secondary skills borrowed from Microlite20 (even though I'm not doing 3.x style skill checks) cover most things (though very broadly) that an expert might be interested in.

I've already dealt with "game the system" at length in a previous post.  I suspect this too might be a player issue.  A mismatch of expectations.

So that leaves the last two:

5. Classless games will lead to people thinking less in terms of the world, and more in terms of points/options/feat-combos/whatever;

6.  classless games will have people thinking less about who their character is in the world, and more about what's the best stuff to start with.

I'm going to deal with 6 first.

I think the second one has to do with the type of points buy systems with a glut of options that simply isn't OSR appropriate.  That you'll spend all your character creation time worry about how to balance points in the best possible way and not think about your character in terms of the setting, genre, focus of the game, etc.,.

Either way the best way to zero in on who a character is in the world is to talk about is as an explicit part of character creation.  The conversation method I've been using is very interested in what the character was doing right before pivotal events changed the world.  And how things changed for the character in the years that followed.

--

That brings us to number 5.  I think number 5 is really off base.  As class or classless simply doesn't have anything to do with the player trying to apply mechanical elements to the described situation.  You can have games with well defined mechanical elements that the player can invoke directly that are the product of a class based approach. This issue has literally zero to do with whether or not the character is in a class or is the product of a classless character creation system.

If I were to stretch for a strategy to safeguard against this pit fall, it would be lower differentiation and vary the kinds of threats or challenges the players will face (as described in an earlier post).  When you stick to describing things in terms of natural language and keep the calling of the system in the hands of the referee.  If the player invokes a system element and starts rolling I'm going to stop and ask them to instead describe what their character is doing.  And possibly remind them that the way to have traction is through description in natural language and not through trying to invoke the system and roll dice.

The fact that the solution has absolutely nothing at all to do with class/class free leads me to believe the pitfall didn't really either.  I think this has been a trend in a lot of the criticism of the idea of a "classless' OSR game" that has showed up in this thread.

Quote from: NathanIW;843223Oh.  I remember now.  The Adventurer definitely has a "feats" vibe.  Every second level you pick from a list of stuff.  I'm not a huge fan of that either, but I don't recall that being in the regular M74.  Maybe M74 or S&W where everyone is a fighting man and magic is something found during play would be the way to go instead.

In Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery? It started out an optional rule but the playtesters really did not like playing without that rule and no one else objected so it became a standard rule for the Swords & Sorcery edition of M74. The actual idea came from an article somewhere (a blog? Fight On!?) although the originator probably would not recognize what it turned into.

Quote from: RandallS;843252In Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery? It started out an optional rule but the playtesters really did not like playing without that rule and no one else objected so it became a standard rule for the Swords & Sorcery edition of M74. The actual idea came from an article somewhere (a blog? Fight On!?) although the originator probably would not recognize what it turned into.

It looks neat and fun enough.  It's certainly not the massive list of feats across multiple volumes that a 3.x/PF/4E fighter player has to deal with.  It's very manageable.  And it's just a little extra oomph.  I can see how it might feel more 3.Xish though.

I started out with M20 as the basis for my game but M74 took over very, very rapidly.  It's a game that values the inverse relationship between mechanical differentiation and available options during play.  Or to put it more plainly, it's a game where the rules never get in the way of the fun.  Using it also opened up the S&W monsters and SRD whereas (from what I understand) M20 was designed for compatibility with 3.x era modules and adventures.

Thanks for the game and I really enjoy your blog!

The Fantasy Age game link that Wil Wheaton is using for his Science Fantasy game on YouTube.