The Campaign Builder's Guild

[note=The Title]From IRC: SabrWolf: [the thread's title is] somewhat unfitting, given that your brain makes entirely no sense and is completely unorganized. So much so that a thread with even the slightest inkling of organization would give the uninformed a false impression of your brain.[/note]While working on Terra Macabre, I've had a ton of ideas – literally about 4 pages in Word – that fall into one of three categories: those that could not possibly fit into Terra Macabre, those that could fit but would radically alter the setting to the point where I'd have to start from scratch, and those that are mechanical/random in nature so wouldn't work. In short, the Xathan's list is a bunch of things that I'm going to be working on intently once I get Terra Macabre to a place where it's "Beta Complete" (something I'll be delving into later) and in the meantime would like to hear thoughts on and get to bouncing ideas around with the CBG so they can develop and get OUT OF MY HEAD so I can work on Terra Macabre more. :P This thread is going to be my "Random Idea Dumping Ground", sort of a staging zone for my random ideas and a place to put them while I focus on one primary project instead of my typical habit of just starting something new whenever a new idea pops into my head. :P

Anyway, here's the projects I've come up with:

Xeno Fantaseum: A closer to traditional fantasy setting than I've done in a long, long time – no elves in space, no non-Euclidean geometry, no cystalpunk. It will have elves. It will have lizardfolk. It will have giants. Here there be dragons. It will be inspired a lot by skyrim because I've been spending such a huge amount of time playing that damn game. What, then, makes it original or worth the time where there are dozens of other fantasy settings out there? Well, as the name implies, I'm bringing in a stronger element of the 'alien' and 'otherworldly' to this setting, providing (hopefully) unique takes on classic races/creatures and tropes to make them a bit strange and weird by our standards, but not the point where we get to the Incomprehensible Extremes you find in Terra Macabre. Secondly, many fantasy settings draw from a couple different mythologies – celtic in the instance of Cad Gaelor, Greco-Roman for Agra for two examples from our own forums off the top of my head and China/Japan for Rokugan for an example from a published setting. Xeno Fantaseum will draw its primary mythological basis from Judeo-Christian (including Islamic) mythology, including the faith that Judaism evolved from. In addition,

I'm going to be going high enough magic where you couldn't just plop XF in mideval Europe and adding enough aesthetic twists to keep it from being insertable into any other fantasy setting. That's all I'm going to post for now, otherwise it'll become irresistible to start developing it into a full fledged setting. In addition, inspired by Skyrim, I'm going to focus almost entirely on the interactions of 2 or 3 nations as opposed to the whole world, and leave it up to the DM to create entirely new parts of the globe if they so desire.

X-20: Reading Xeviat's thread's about his adaptation of 4E and looking over some old 3e/new Pathfinder rulebooks have made me nostalgic for the more classic, DnD style system. Designed to be compatible with almost any fantasy setting, the intent here is to combine my favorite elements of OGL d20 (which will be the backbone of this system), d20 modern, ideas drawn from 4E, and aspects (I made a pun!) of FATE, including Aspects and Consequences, with a dash of the flexibility of Green Ronin's True 20 (If you like MnM, True 20 is kind of a more classic class-based version of the same system) as well as the variability and level of awesome from Asura (the system, not the setting, since I can't make a setting with that type of awesome without just remaking Asura Xathan style – would have to use a different kind of awesome. :P)

It's called X-20 because it will be designed with Xeno Fantaseum in mind (Plus, my username is Xathan), but I'm not restricting it to that setting – if I do this right, it'd be completely possible to run Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Cadaverous Earth, Jade Stage, Agra, or really any Fantasy Setting within it, but especially those that are designed for use with existing d20 systems.

Terra Macabre IRC games: I shouldn't need to explain these – and once I get TM Beta Complete, I figure these will be the best way to expand TM.

The Micro-Settings and Setting Concepts: I have a ton of ideas that go in two directions: Settings that would not merit the full attention of a setting like Terra Macabre or Xeno Fantaseum but I feel are interesting enough to at least get a couple dozen hours of work in on to get them to Beta Complete, and ideas that I have no particular setting to attach to, but would love to develop in a vacuum to cannibalize for other settings or just for fun. These are, in no particular order:

Some of these include..

Atlas Sunk, a setting inspired by Light Dragon's Gloria, Bioshock, Dresden Codak, and Fallout 3 and the setting of a brief IRC game I'm running that I'd like to do a bit more with.

When the West Was Weird, a fantasy western setting that draws from my last attempt at such a setting with some elements stolen from other examples of this rather underused genre and a second setting to use X-20.

The Mirrored Dream, which will actually be a subsetting of Terra Macabre and be that setting's equivalent to H.P. Lovecraft's Dream Lands.

World of the Living Dead, a setting that takes place after the "zombie"/undead apocalypse and focuses on humanity surviving within a post-apocalyptic wasteland...with ZOMBIES!

Verdant Apocalypse, a revival of an old setting of mine where we invert the typical post-apocalyptic wasteland idea and instead it's a post-apocalypse that deals with plant and animal life going haywire to bring about the End of the World (TM).

Mages at War, just a fun look at one way military technology and strategy could develop within a classic tolkienian/vangcian fantasy world.

Aftermath, a style of gameplay that takes tabletop gaming and turns it into RPG where you're trying to build and unify a nation from the ashes of a Dying Earth.

Nightmare's Stirring, a horror setting where slashers, demonic possessions, and the other tropes of the classic horror films are real, and men and women across the globe fight a secret war against them – a war they are losing.

Dystopia Denied, a setting in the near future that takes elements of Cyberpunk, Orwell's 1984, and the Matrix where groups of individuals have learned to tap into their innate [Power Source] abilities and wage a secret war against the omnipresent System.

That's where I am right now. More will be added later on, and any and all thoughts are appreciated. :D

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsSecondly, many fantasy settings draw from a couple different mythologies – celtic in the instance of Cad Gaelor, Greco-Roman for Agra for two examples from our own forums off the top of my head and China/Japan for Rokugan for an example from a published setting. Xeno Fantaseum will draw its primary mythological basis from Judeo-Christian (including Islamic) mythology, including the faith that Judaism evolved from. In addition,

I'm going to be going high enough magic where you couldn't just plop XF in mideval Europe and adding enough aesthetic twists to keep it from being insertable into any other fantasy setting. That's all I'm going to post for now, otherwise it'll become irresistible to start developing it into a full fledged setting. In addition, inspired by Skyrim, I'm going to focus almost entirely on the interactions of 2 or 3 nations as opposed to the whole world, and leave it up to the DM to create entirely new parts of the globe if they so desire.

Reading that kind of stuff makes me think Olam is not really so unique in any aspect other than it being my response to the overwhelming bleakness of most settings. I mean, it shares the big Hellenic influence with Agra, and now it would share the Judeochristian stuff with XF. And then I remember that making it a "distorted fantasy Earth" makes it nothing more than an offspring of Forgotten Realms.

That makes me realise I have to work harder on elements that make it different. On elements that wouldn't make it "Forgotten Realms, just done through my lens" or "Agra, if its author based more parts on other countries". It makes me feel I have to mix the cultural elements harder if I want to make it special.

Otherwise... ahem... my thought on this? Eh... cool stuff?

Quite a few interesting ideas here! :D

As I'm sure you (and quite a few others around here) are quite aware, I'm all about mashing things together. Most of these ideas are interesting little flashes of inspiration, but probably wouldn't stand themselves as full fledged settings-- at least, not without more development, such as, oh, mashing them together with some of these other little kernels of inspiration. After enough mashing, something really good will probably result. So I'd encourage mashing together wherever possible, for example, the world of Atlas Sunk could be people escaping from the Verdant Apocalypse or the Aftermath, or maybe something like Nightmare's Stirring is taking place back east at the same time as When the West Was Weird, or, well, you get the idea.

When it comes to systems, though, I'm a little less liberal with the mashing-together. A lot of times, you only end up introducing redundant mechanics, or severely complicating things that should be simple. For example, if you take a basic FATE-like system, and tack on a bunch of crunchy and precise combat, you end up with... well, my initial, snarky response would've been that you end up with Burning Wheel... but what I mean is, you end up with something that feels too mushy and full of FATE-like tools to be truly simulationist, but also too crunchy and precise to allow RP and storytelling to drive the game like FATE does. Be careful of trying to merge too much together, because you end up adding needless complexity rather than play fun.

Not to derail this with talking about my own stuff, but I'll confess that a few of your ideas would work pretty well as Asura games. The [Power Source] in Dystopia Denied could very well be Prana, and the Asuras could be the threat that the authoritarian state faces. Stuff like Mages at War would also work pretty well, especially if the focus is on the PCs getting to lead the way in various epic battles of awesomeness. And such things.  :grin:

I agree with sparkie`s mashing idea.

The Verdant Apocalypse with Mages at War, Aftermath and Nightmare's Stirring could give a powerful overall result. Mages have been fighting each other, creating the Stirring and Apocalypse and then the Aftermath initiative takes place.

[ic=Xathan of Many Ideas]Atlas Sunk, a setting inspired by Light Dragon's Gloria, Bioshock, Dresden Codak, and Fallout 3 and the setting of a brief IRC game I'm running that I'd like to do a bit more with. [/ic]This one sounds really cool!  Are you playing it on a different site, or did I somehow miss the post for this?  I take it it's underwater, at least in part??

Quote from: SteerpikeAre you playing it on a different site, or did I somehow miss the post for this?

There was no post, and more or less no planning. Some of us (Xathan, Weave, Sabr, and me) were sitting around and talking on IRC and Xathan suggested an impromptu game.

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsX-20: Reading Xeviat's thread's about his adaptation of 4E and looking over some old 3e/new Pathfinder rulebooks have made me nostalgic for the more classic, DnD style system. Designed to be compatible with almost any fantasy setting, the intent here is to combine my favorite elements of OGL d20 (which will be the backbone of this system), d20 modern, ideas drawn from 4E, and aspects (I made a pun!) of FATE, including Aspects and Consequences, with a dash of the flexibility of Green Ronin's True 20 (If you like MnM, True 20 is kind of a more classic class-based version of the same system) as well as the variability and level of awesome from Asura (the system, not the setting, since I can't make a setting with that type of awesome without just remaking Asura Xathan style – would have to use a different kind of awesome. :P)

It's called X-20 because it will be designed with Xeno Fantaseum in mind (Plus, my username is Xathan), but I'm not restricting it to that setting – if I do this right, it'd be completely possible to run Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Cadaverous Earth, Jade Stage, Agra, or really any Fantasy Setting within it, but especially those that are designed for use with existing d20 systems.

Interesting, because I was calling the work I was doing on my system "Xev-20", so I think fate has brought us together (see what I did there?) I'd love to work with someone on a "classic" system, though I will push for 4E as more of a base system (mainly 4E monster design, with X+level as the basic formula for expected stats).

I've been crazy busy between planning the next session of my IRL game and working with a friend last night, but wanted to pop by to thank everyone for the feedback and let you guys know I'm reading, thinking, and will be responding (likely tomorrow/monday).

One brief note: Steerpike, it was a totally random, spur of the moment type thing - I made up the game on the spot. :P However, I fully intend on getting the logs up and a post up, since there are 4-5 unclaimed PCs running around and the possibility of new NPCs appearing, and I'd love for more people to join if they're interested before the next session. :)

Thank you all again!

Ah, gotcha!  I may be able to join depending on when it happens.

Okay, now time for that more targeted reply I promised. :)
@Kalontas: Glad to hear that this got you thinking - always good to know my post was helpful. :)

@Sparkle and Magnus: the plan was to use these settings for future mashups, but those exact combinations I'd never have thought of - and a ton of them would be a blast to do. I think I'm going to develop these settings as per the original plan, and then get the mashing hammer out - thank you both a ton for the combination ideas. :D 

Sparkle, I definitely see your point on the setting stuff and I'm going to be doing my best to avoid that. I fully admit that the danger of X-20 becoming a convoluted mess is there, and if that happens I'll be sad but I'm not going to be wed to this system - the idea here is to see if it can be done, regardless of if it should. If the experiment fails, hopefully I'll at least have fun trying, and maybe inspire something else for someone else. :P I'm counting on you (and Sabr and Xeviat and LC, since those are the three biggest crunchmasters I interact with here) to call me on it if this becomes way too much. Incidentally, the end of this post will have details of the specifics for this system mashup for your consideration. :)

As for those two working really well in Asura...that's so very, very true. While I wouldn't presume to set something IN someone else's setting, there's a very good chance that Dystopia Denied and Mages at War (especially the former!) is going to use a slightly tweaked version of the Asura system - largely tweaked to slightly alter how prana powers work to achieve a less magic feel and a more matrix-y feel. :P

@Xeviat - hah, and I thought bad puns were exclusively my job. :P I'd love to turn this into a more collaborative project, but I want to stick to a closer OGL d20 system for steadier legal ground and because there's more in the classic d20 system I like than in 4E - but if you're interested, check the spoiler at the end of this post for more details.

@Steerpike - I hope you can join us!

...and actually, that spoiler is now. 

[spoiler=X-20]

The big thing I started with was a list of likes and dislikes from the systems I'm stealing from, and I figured I'd share these

d20 3.5: 
Likes

• Each classe feels completely unique
• Classes are versatile
• Covered by the OGL
• Has a very classic, familiar feel to it
• Skill/feat spending flexible and choices matter
• Rolling weapon/spell damage instead of fixed values

Dislikes

• Rigid casting structure/vancian magic
• Obvious "teirs" to classes
• Levels 1-5 are dull and levesl 15-20 are too godly
• Most interesting stuff only comes at higher levels
• Challenge Rating a nightmare to calculate and monster/foe design overly complete
• Hit points too abstract
• Most of the time, best option is to do a very basic attack action or cast a basic spell - more complex actions have very complex, difficult to follow rules to accompany them
• Save or Die, Permanent Level/Ability score loss, and XP costs

d20 Modern
Likes

• Most of the same as above
• Massive damage thresholds provide more concrete (though overly harsh) impacts to damage
• Class matters for both attack and defense
• All classes much  more modular

Dislikes

• Copy past everything from above
• Massive damage being save or die
• Base classes really just springboard for later Advanced classes and feel dull and overly generic

4E
Likes

• Monster and encounter design simpler, elegant, and smooth
• Characters get awesome abilities from the beginning and cannot be menaced by a housecat or particularly vicious piece of cheese at level one
• At will powers make each class able to do their unique thing from the beginning
• Got rid of some above problems with 3.X
• Skill list simpler and more refined
• No risk of getting 1 HP for leveling up
• Prestige/paragon/epic classes don't stop you from being what you were, just add to it

Dislikes

• Pretty much everything not mentioned above
• What, you want some specifics?
• Fine
• Every class is now Vancian
• Daily abilities, especially for non-mystic classes - "This sword swing is so awesome I can do it once each day
• Very strong focus on grid/miniature use
• Feels very MMO
• Rigidly defined roles
• Class design is horrifically complicated and most come across the same
• Multiclassing
• Paragon Paths/Epic Teir Paths forced
• All classes feel the same or very similar, use exact same mechanics, and you forget old abilities (I learned this new skill so totally forgot how I did something before)
• I could go on, but won't

FATE
Likes

• Aspects and consequences
• Maneuvers and temporary aspects make doing things other than attacking very easy and intuitive
• Cleverness rewarded, not punished
• Ability to make declarations give players a degree of control
• FATE points
• Anything else I don't mention in the dislikes

Dislikes

• Skill pyramid feels very artificial
• Weapon damage fixed
• Very small list of stunts/powers player has access to
• ...uhhh...I guess I'm not a huge fan of being able to roll negative results.
• Stress track just a boring way of waiting for consequences to come up
• Lacks a certain "classic" feel
• That's it, and some of those were stretching - FATE is awesome.

So that's the perspective from which I'm approaching this. There's one thing I want to add: my thoughts on how Hit Points should work. Right now what I'm thinking is you have hit points, totals smaller than DnD. Using something similar to Massive Damage - although a much lower number so it would crop up more frequently - you would have to take consequences when one of two things happen - to avoid your hit points dropping to 0, which is likely expected, and to avoid getting taken out if your Massive Damage Threshold is exceeded. That makes consequences crop up in combat on a more unpredictable basis, making combat more tense, but still also allow the "countdown doomsday clock" feel of stress tracks.
[/spoiler]

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsAs for those two working really well in Asura...that's so very, very true. While I wouldn't presume to set something IN someone else's setting

Hey, if another GM wants to do something with Asura, especially one that I know can handle it like you, who am I to protest? :D

Why do you consider hit points to be better than stress tracks? More variability? I don't disagree, just curious.

Despite trying hard to find something I disagreed for the sake of constructive criticism, I largely agree with your both sound and detailed analysis of the above systems, with the exceptions, perhaps, being a few of the FATE drawbacks (I am pro-negatives!) as well as the comments on "system classicism" which I'd rather avoid than seek out (but that's probably because I'm currently playing a "classic" system ^^ ).

EDIT: on the matter of negatives, I'd rather face the risk of rolling a negative number than having a permanent penalty, which seems to be the way D&D et al. prefers. Nothing sucks more than a negative ability bonus...

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsAs for those two working really well in Asura...that's so very, very true. While I wouldn't presume to set something IN someone else's setting

Hey, if another GM wants to do something with Asura, especially one that I know can handle it like you, who am I to protest? :D

Wow, I'm flattered. :D And that's something I've never seen done on the CBG, someone running a game or building a mini-setting within someone's setting. I might (when I have the time to again, hopefully soon) catch you on IRC and discuss that with you - putting Dystopia Denied in an area of Asura could be incredibly interesting. And nothing says I can't do it in a more modern, matrixy setting AND a different version in Asura. :P

[quoteSuperfluous Crow]Why do you consider hit points to be better than stress tracks? More variability? I don't disagree, just curious.[/quote]

Bingo. A stress track is static and it's very apparently where the damage will appear on it - in fact, after being hit once, you will almost always immediately know if a consequence is a factor or not every time you're hit - and it's pretty easy to figure out in advance if that's the case. With hit points, every single hit could potentially invoke a consequence and you can't be sure if that's a factor until damage is rolled - but you also know that if damage never rolls high enough, if your hit points get low enough it will still matter, so it has that same countdown effect of a stress track, so it's kind of best of both worlds.

QuoteDespite trying hard to find something I disagreed for the sake of constructive criticism, I largely agree with your both sounded and detailed analysis of the above systems, with the exceptions, perhaps, being a few of the FATE drawbacks (I am pro-negatives!) as well as the comments on "system classicism" which I'd rather avoid than seek out (but that's probably because I'm currently playing a "classic" system ^^ ).

The sounded and detailed analysis comment is right now tied with Sparkletwist's comment about trusting me to develop something for Asura in terms of things that made my night. :D And I haven't played in a classic system in ages, so that's probably why we differ in that regard. :P

As for negatives...

QuoteEDIT: on the matter of negatives, I'd rather face the risk of rolling a negative number than having a permanent penalty, which seems to be the way D&D et al. prefers. Nothing sucks more than a negative ability bonus...

See, prior to reading the edit I figured negative rolls were something we'd have to agree to disagree on. Now that I've read it though,  you have a damn good point there - I'd much rather risk rolling negative than always having a permanent penalty to something. I'm going to have to mull over this - if it's possible to avoid both a permanent penalty and negative rolls, that'd be my ideal (I'd love to eat my cake and have it too), but if it looks like for the sake of balance one or the other is going to be a must, I'm now leaning much more towards negative rolls as a risk than permanent penalties.

Though after I typed that, I realized that I will admit to myself negative ability bonus' are nice for the factor of being able to play a character that is sub-par in some area - some of the PCs I've had the most fun interacting with had a negative in Charisma, Wisdom, or Intellect, (one of my current PC's has a charisma penalty in a game that's 50/50 social and combat, and it's nice having to work around having the handcap of "I'm a socially awkward teenager with a big chip on my shoulder) and one of the most fun games I've heard about but not played in was a DnD game a couple friends of mine were in where every character had a free 18 in one stat...but also had to take a 6 in another. It might turn out that eating my cake and having it too will end up being negative rolls AND the option - never mandatory, always a choice of the player - to have a negative ability bonus. In short, a negative ability bonus you have to take because you rolls stats poorly is never fun, but one you chose to have for the character can be a wonderful thing. :P

It should indeed be viable in any system to play a character with sub-par stats, but games like D&D punish you unnecessarily harshly for it. In a game where most rules and difficulties seem to be geared towards a character with a +2 bonus, a -1 or less can be devastating (especially since most of D&D is about "beating the game/challenge/task"). The D&D ability scores are rather granular, which is why this is a problem, and a +-1 difference means more than it should. Lower variance around the average score would be preferable. 

Another tendency I have observed when it comes to low ability scores is that players with low stats tend to become "stat clowns". Basically, their utter lack of competence in some field causes them to take it to ridiculous levels for the sake of comic relief - the low-cha orc always says the wrong thing at the wrong time, the low-wisdom wizard always forgets things, and the low-str cleric always fails miserably at the simplest tasks. This is probably why your friends enjoyed the game they played so much, because this can occasionally be hilarious. But it can also be too much, and often it gets out of hand, breaking the suspension of disbelief, drawing people out of immersion, causing exasperated fellow players to groan in dismay etc.

Ideally, your character should be able to be bad at something without being the most incompetent person ever to grace this earth. 

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsAnd nothing says I can't do it in a more modern, matrixy setting AND a different version in Asura.

Well, nothing except the fact that you don't want to try to have too much going at the same time. :)

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsI'd much rather risk rolling negative than always having a permanent penalty to something.

I don't think where the "negative" comes up actually matters. It's just a question of offsets.
In d20, you roll a die with a positive integer and add a value centered around 0 to it.
In FATE, you roll a die with a value centered around 0 and add a (usually) positive integer to it.
One basic approach could be changed to the other just by offsetting some numbers.

What does matter is that FATE uses 4 dice and has a strong bell curve, whereas d20 uses a strictly linear probability. There is, as such, a lot more chance of outlying weirdness on d20 dice rolls. I think this factor, not any kind of "permanent penalty", is what can make d20 seem more wild and harsh.

Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worldsif it's possible to avoid both a permanent penalty and negative rolls, that'd be my ideal

If you want to avoid both permanent penalties and negative rolls, then play FATE with "Terrible" as 0 and "Mediocre" as +2, and with d3s instead of fudge dice. Add 10 to any static value that you're rolling against. It won't change anything in the end, but it will get rid of negative numbers.  :grin:

Xathan, the main thing I like about 4E is something you like as well, in a round about fashion. CR in 3E was a nightmare. 4E monster design is stupidly simple, and it is similar enough to things like M&M (another OGL product) that a monster table could be put into OGL and be just fine. I also dislike fractional save progressions (1/2 vs. 2/3 creates an imbalance that grows larger at high levels). Those are the two things I hate the most about 3E (also the fact that someone who hasn't pumped wisdom or spot/listen cannot hope to notice the skulking assassin at level 15).

I agree with the bulk of your posts, so I still feel more than willing to work with you on X20, especially since we're both X's.

WoD and many other systems avoid negative numbers. 0 is inept, 1 is barely skilled, 2 is average. It's a baseline I could get behind.

Quote from: Xeviat
WoD and many other systems avoid negative numbers. 0 is inept, 1 is barely skilled, 2 is average. It's a baseline I could get behind.

Less math is always something I can get behind.

Urg, sorry for the delay in replying here.

Crow: I see your point - so far, I've been pretty lucky in my grows when it comes to "stat clowning" - the only time I've seen or heard of it was in that game where everyone was playing someone with a negative, but it does seem to be problematic enough to consider. My replies below will show a bit more of how I'm thinking about stats (the 0 base), and letting the negative aspects - absentminded professor, socially inept thug - be handled by, well, aspects. Best of both worlds - doesn't create stat clowns as easily and you get to pick you desired competence level based on how you word the aspect.

Sparkle: When has having too much ever stopped me? :P Seriously, though, I wouldn't do both at once, just one sooner and one later - and likely the Asura version first, depending on how inspiration strikes. 

As for the dice, that was something I hadn't considered, especially about the bell curve and how it relates to regular d20's harshness. While the solutions you mentioned are workable, there's two problems for me: 1) I'd like to keep the system as a d20 backbone with FATE sprinkles, not the other way around and 2) I'm not  a huge fan of non-existant dice, even if (like the d3) they're very easy to simulate using dice that actually exist. :P

That being said, since you're better at this probability stuff, do you think a simple change from d20 to 2d10 would prove effective enough in adding a curve to reduce the harsh outliers but still allowing the same range of outcomes as a d20? Or would the curve not be steep enough to have a significant influence?

Xeviat: Glad we agree on that point - all three of them, actually, since not only do you need to pump spot and listen (2 different skills to be aware someone's sneaking up on you), but for many classes they're cross class (urgh, something else I'm going to get rid of) and I agree with you on fractional saves - and I blame them, in part, for the imbalance and "tiers" we saw in 3.5 and OGL d20 in general. (I'm of the opinion that a fast, agile person should be able to better evade a fireball than a guy wearing a full suit of plate, but evasion and similar class features and feats do a better job of simulating that than fractional saves - and if a significant bonus is needed, a flat increase once or twice would be more balanced and predictable than a fractional one)

both you and sparkle pointed out that negative stats, when it comes to flavor, are just a matter of definition - -2, -10, 0, +2, +10, it doesn't matter - any of those could be terrible if defined as such. It's not about changing the numbers so much as it is about changing the perception of the numbers, and to counteract the annoying associate's in philosophy sound of that, boingy boingy whoopsy stabby. 

That being said, going with a 0 is bad rather than average in a d20 base would immediately do a great deal to influence how players used to d20 view that 0, and would feel less harsh than a -4.

@Leetz: Yes. Less math is always good - don't want to accidentally create a system you need a minor in statistical analysis to play.

In General:
I'm currently putting development on my more involved projects - Terra Macabre, TM FATE, and X20 - on hiatus until december 15th, after I'm done with exams. However, I'm not willing to spend the entire time in a creative slump, so during that I'm going to (besides responding to comments on the above 3, since that doesn't take as much thought as developing brand new things) work on some of the other, less involved things here - including laying groundwork for Xeno Fantaseum, which I hope to be able to do soon. 

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsI'm not  a huge fan of non-existant dice, even if (like the d3) they're very easy to simulate using dice that actually exist. :P

They do exist. There are some weird triangular dice made that are actual d3's, but, you can also get 6-sided dice that are just labeled 1-3 twice, essentially quite like a Fudge die.
(As an aside, I will take this moment to lament the decline of the twenty-sided d10)

Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsThat being said, since you're better at this probability stuff, do you think a simple change from d20 to 2d10 would prove effective enough in adding a curve to reduce the harsh outliers but still allowing the same range of outcomes as a d20? Or would the curve not be steep enough to have a significant influence?

The curve is a straight triangular shape, instead of a bell curve. If you want probabilities clustered in the middle but with more variance than a true bell curve, that is actually just what you want. When rolling 2d10, you have a 1% chance of rolling a 2, and a 1% chance of rolling a 20. This is down from the flat 5% chance you have on a d20. You have a 10% chance of rolling an 11, which is double that of the chances on a d20. The probabilities progress smoothly from there; i.e., a 1% chance of a 2, 2% chance of a 3, 3% chance of a 4, and so on, all the way up to a 10% chance of an 11, and then a 9% chance of a 12 and so on back down.

So this may suit your purposes quite well. :)

The roll I wanted to implement for my own system was going to be 1d6-1d6, which lands in the -5 to +5 range. This corresponds nicely to skills in the 0 to 10 range, since a guy with 10-5 and a guy with 0+5 will tie (although this roll is quite unlikely with a probability of 0.077%), and it also doesn't require fancy dice.

@Sparkletwist: Wait...20 sided d10? But what...that is...brain.

QuoteThe curve is a straight triangular shape, instead of a bell curve. If you want probabilities clustered in the middle but with more variance than a true bell curve, that is actually just what you want. When rolling 2d10, you have a 1% chance of rolling a 2, and a 1% chance of rolling a 20. This is down from the flat 5% chance you have on a d20. You have a 10% chance of rolling an 11, which is double that of the chances on a d20. The probabilities progress smoothly from there; i.e., a 1% chance of a 2, 2% chance of a 3, 3% chance of a 4, and so on, all the way up to a 10% chance of an 11, and then a 9% chance of a 12 and so on back down.

So this may suit your purposes quite well.

That's perfect, actually - makes odds easy to estimate but makes the dice a bit more predictable. Will have to make criticals more AWESOME since they're much more rare now, but I'm okay with that since fumbles are equally rare now.

QuoteThe roll I wanted to implement for my own system was going to be 1d6-1d6, which lands in the -5 to +5 range. This corresponds nicely to skills in the 0 to 10 range, since a guy with 10-5 and a guy with 0+5 will tie (although this roll is quite unlikely with a probability of 0.077%), and it also doesn't require fancy dice.

That's actually a pretty good way to handle it - unfortunately, I want the max roll to be a 20 (since I'm calling it X20 after all. :P) and I can't think of a good combination that will get me a range of -20 to +20 (Though that would be awesome if I could figure it out.)



And now for something completely different:

Xeno Fantaseum Brainstorming[note]It's worth mentioning that this is all highly preliminary and written in sand - I'm dumping every idea I have and going to sift through them.[/note]

Design Goals:
-Provide a unique spin on existing fantasy tropes and concepts without twisting it into the realm of unrecognizable
-Create a setting that feels and looks fantastic (in the original sense) without going into the area of creepy.
-Maintain a feel of the alien but avoid the previously mentioned creepy - no "boogerville" setting this time.
-Make magic matter and have a realistic impact on the world without making swords/armor/castles obsolete.
-Biology matters. It can be weird, it can create cool creatures, but I'm going to actually consider evolution in some form...or create my own rules for it.

Inspirations:
-Skyrim. Just...Skyrim. I probably would have been able to hold off working on a fantasy setting for quite some time if it wasn't for skyrim, and it's a great example for the "spin but still recognizable" Goal.
-Judeo-Christian and Celtic mythology, with a bit of pre-Islamic arabic and Egyptian mythology thrown in. Some of my favorite mythologies, and ones I see as rather under-used (Not that they aren't - I've seen Cad Gaelor and Olam, after all) and I'd like to apply my own unique spins here.
-Pretty much every CBG setting I've read and commented on to some degree or another.
-My old settings. Inspiration isn't really the right word here - but I'm cannibalizing all of them that didn't get the axe already for TM and I haven't used yet. :P

Geography:
-Here's where I'm really trying to go to the degree of "Fantastic without creepy"
-However, I'm torn between three "constructs" for the world. Thoughts?
A) The world is a series of "islands" (ranging in size from new Zealand to Antarctica) connected by a series of land bridges that can get as thin as 1 km and a wide as Florida and Italy. This entire web floats but still forms a sphere that the sun orb around, and at the core is a massive, semi-luminescent crystal that makes the nights never get darker than twilight on Earth. The advantages of this are that it looks completely awesome in my head and opens some really interesting possibilities, but with the downside of it does limit the landmass available to a particular cultures, in terms of nomadic bands and sprawling empires. Also, underground areas become much more limited in depth.
B) The world has a similar island-web structure but is instead a dyson web, facing inwards. The advantage is that I can do much, much larger landmasses and still retain the look of option A, but the downsides are I have to come up with some way to do day/night cycles and not go crazy and weird, and it becomes an absolutely enormous area to deal with.
C) The world is a stable sphere like we all recognize, but branching off of the world are "Earth Trees", large petrified remains of enormous prehistoric flora that have "trunks" a mile or two wide, go around 50-200 stories into the air, and have fused, bowl-like branches large enough accommodate towns and cities. Creates a very interesting take on the floating islands (and can easily make these trees larger to accommodate entire nations on their branches) and has the advantage of allowing for cool adventure sites while not removing any of the classic adventure sites and being more familiar to those of us native to Earth, with the downside of I'm having trouble picturing them and if I can't I'll never be able write a believable setting with them.

So you can imagine the crazy landwebs but not the petrified space elevator trees? ^^
I think I'm the complete opposite. I get the general idea of the landweb, but then there is suddenly a giant crystal in the middle, which creates twilight, which means that in between these landbridges you don't find water just empty space, right?I can sort of imagine it seen from outer space, but living on it??
It's kinda cool but also somewhat over-the-top crazy, so it will take some balancing and hard work to keep the suspension of disbelief firmly in place.

The trees I can get behind. Most fantasy players can accept floating islands and these trees are, as you note, basically floating islands with trunks. Imagining it from space is not entirely simple, but think of how it would look standing on the ground: you, a tiny living being, standing in the shadow cast by one of these gargantuan entities. They are like insane sphere mountains. And the ground environment might be very different, with some areas lying in perpetual shade. Do the sphere-things have a local gravity? I could imagine both local (entire civilizations seen living and working from the ground of the mother-planet) and non-local (spherical seas gushing off the equator of tree-spheres in thunderous waterfalls).

In relation to the earth-webs, you might take an ounce of inspiration from the classic D&D plane Pandemonium, which was one of the few places I enjoyed the idea of. Basically a plane of howling winds, eroded tunnels, and non-specific gravity that always pointed towards the nearest surface. Imagine doing your earth-web in three dimensions, making it this eroded lattice of caves, pools, chasms and murderholes.

That being said, I'm personally pretty conservative with how my world looks. Creating a coherent and believable world is challenging enough without twisting the world out of shape and I'd hate to alienate my readers/players before they even get to the setting proper. Now, this is my inner pessimist speaking, so don't take it too much to heart. :p

I think they Dyson web might require more work than an amateur world-builder would be willing to put into - maybe if Wizards or Paizo or someone paid you, but not only would it require seriously thinking of repercussions of a such unusual world shape, its size might just overwhelm anyone who has any commitments other than just its construction. A bit too alien, if you ask me.

I'm with S. Crow on this one. I think the idea of having giant trees that serve as giant cities or even kingdoms is really cool and, IMHO, a bit more "Fantastic" in the traditional sensibility. Don't get me wrong, the Earth web would be hugely fantastic in a classical definition, but the giant trees sound more traditionally fantastic. Antiquated and almost Tolkien-esque actually.

I'd go for that one if it was me working on this setting with the guidelines you've laid out for yourself.

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
So you can imagine the crazy landwebs but not the petrified space elevator trees? ^^
I think I'm the complete opposite. I get the general idea of the landweb, but then there is suddenly a giant crystal in the middle, which creates twilight, which means that in between these landbridges you don't find water just empty space, right?I can sort of imagine it seen from outer space, but living on it?? It's kinda cool but also somewhat over-the-top crazy, so it will take some balancing and hard work to keep the suspension of disbelief firmly in place.

My brain is wired weird, so yup! Crazy landbridge crystal thing is easier than giant trees for me...>.> However, when you put it like that...I can see your point very well.

QuoteThe trees I can get behind. Most fantasy players can accept floating islands and these trees are, as you note, basically floating islands with trunks. Imagining it from space is not entirely simple, but think of how it would look standing on the ground: you, a tiny living being, standing in the shadow cast by one of these gargantuan entities. They are like insane sphere mountains. And the ground environment might be very different, with some areas lying in perpetual shade. Do the sphere-things have a local gravity? I could imagine both local (entire civilizations seen living and working from the ground of the mother-planet) and non-local (spherical seas gushing off the equator of tree-spheres in thunderous waterfalls).

....Sold. That mental image is awesome. I hadn't even considered local gravity for the trees, and now I find the idea insanely tempting - I just need to see if I can work with that without breaking my own suspension of disbelief. If not, then I'll keep the gravity what I had planned, where the branches are more like bowls instead of spheres and the civilizations exist within them.

QuoteIn relation to the earth-webs, you might take an ounce of inspiration from the classic D&D plane Pandemonium, which was one of the few places I enjoyed the idea of. Basically a plane of howling winds, eroded tunnels, and non-specific gravity that always pointed towards the nearest surface. Imagine doing your earth-web in three dimensions, making it this eroded lattice of caves, pools, chasms and murderholes.

Pandemonium was my favorite DnD plane too, and I've long considered a setting built in it. Now what you have me pondering is doing the trees on the surface and Pandemonium Web on the inside...in fact, that might be incredible.

QuoteThat being said, I'm personally pretty conservative with how my world looks. Creating a coherent and believable world is challenging enough without twisting the world out of shape and I'd hate to alienate my readers/players before they even get to the setting proper. Now, this is my inner pessimist speaking, so don't take it too much to heart. :p

I'll admit that's something I'm worried about. There's a chance I might ditch the weird geography altogether...but I love weird geography so much. In theory. In practice, however, you're right - it's so much harder to write, play, and believe in a world where geography and physics are told to go sit in the corner.

Quote from: KalontasI think they Dyson web might require more work than an amateur world-builder would be willing to put into - maybe if Wizards or Paizo or someone paid you, but not only would it require seriously thinking of repercussions of a such unusual world shape, its size might just overwhelm anyone who has any commitments other than just its construction. A bit too alien, if you ask me.

Yeah, it's probably too big for a one person job.

Quote from: SabrWolfI'm with S. Crow on this one. I think the idea of having giant trees that serve as giant cities or even kingdoms is really cool and, IMHO, a bit more "Fantastic" in the traditional sensibility. Don't get me wrong, the Earth web would be hugely fantastic in a classical definition, but the giant trees sound more traditionally fantastic. Antiquated and almost Tolkien-esque actually.

I'd go for that one if it was me working on this setting with the guidelines you've laid out for yourself.

Glad to hear we're all in agreement on that! :D Question: Crow floated the idea of no weird geography, and I'm pondering it. Thoughts?

[/quote]

Quote from: Xathan DovahkiinQuestion: Crow floated the idea of no weird geography, and I'm pondering it. Thoughts?

I think your question needs a bit more clarification. In your initial Xeno Fantaseum Brainstorm you mentioned 3 options for geography. Web-world, dyson sphere world, and tree world. Since tree world seems to be the general consensus (so far), what was it that you wanted to discuss? (lol)

First of all, on Xeno Fantaseum (a month later) I'm going with the tree world: more on that later.

However, what I wanted to talk about for a moment is why I build. It's something I've been giving some thought to, details I've been niggling at, but it boils down to two things:

I used to build just for fun.

Of late, I've been thinking about getting published way too much.

The latter has been killing me. I worry about OGC, I worry about copyright, I worry about a number of things that take the fun out of building. Then I take on too many projects (another problem entirely) and that leads to writer's block and eventually to me vanishing from the boards yet again.

As such, I've made a couple of decisions.

First of all, I'm cutting back my projects. Xeno Fantaseum and Terra Macabre are going to be my two settings, with a tertiary setting being a classic(ish) 3.5 dnd setting since my players want a game set in that and I'm nothing if not an obliging DM. Instead of making X-20 as a full brand new system, I'm going to do a rules system that is a way to incorporate Aspects, Consequences, and Maneuvers into d20 with a couple minor adjustments to bring it in line with Pathfinder and bring monster/encounter design in line with 4e - much smaller scale and much less work than what I had originally planned. Once that's hammered out, I'm going to do something I haven't done in ages: d20 class and race design (keeping in mind the modifications I've made). Why? Because in thinking about d20 again, I remembered something I had forgotten: I freaking love the d20 system, for all of its flaws. An added benefit to this is a new class/race/feat set/whatever is a fairly simple project, no where near as involved as a new setting or system - in fact, I think every project on the CBG I've actually finished has fallen into the above categories and really required minimal effort.

I'm also not going to worry about if a setting/ruleset/concept could get published. It's killing my creativity and, unlike when I first started worrying about that, I'm no longer interested in professional game design: the way my life is headed right now, I'm going towards a career I'm going to enjoy and am no longer worried about become a professional game designer. Anything I "publish" will likely be a PDF through Drive Through RPG that's free, and if I do that it's going to be way, way, way down the road. Until then, I'm taking back the mentality of "I do this for fun, not as a third job", which should increase my productivity dramatically.

In the coming weeks, expect to see the rough sketch for the simple version of what X20 is going to be (as well as d20/Pathfinder/X20 compatable classes, feats, etc), an update to Terra Macabre in terms of cultures and getting the setting to the point where it's playable and I'm happy with it, and laying the groundwork on XF. Thank you all for sticking with me on this, and I'm looking forward to designing and posting.

Good idea to go ahead with doing it for free. If your career involves govt. work or many companies, then you won't be allowed to earn income from other jobs/sources (At least without approval... and with govt. work that may be unlikely).

Sadly, few things can be sold at a profitable margin to make setting up a company and dealing with taxes, etc. worth the trouble. And even those that are sold don't support people too well. Paizo's lucky... but TSR went into bankruptcy, and most 3PP barely make enough to pay 2 peoples' salaries. :o.

But all is not a loss. There is the chance that if you publish it for free now, kicking around ideas and it does get popular, then someone might actually pay you to develop something more involved. That chance is small, but it's like what happens with some E-book designers. You create a market and make a name for yourself, then you can sell yourself and your later, newer, better work at a higher rate!