So Lord Vreeg's Celtrica meta-thread got me in a guilt-spiral about not having a workable, dedicated system attached to the Cadaverous Earth. Of course the fluff stands on its own; of course anyone who really wanted to run a CE game probably could do so with whatever system they chose, with a lot of improvisation and a bit of work. But as Vreeg noted, a campaign setting isn't really a campaign setting until it's playable. That some people have nominated CE for Awesomest Setting Guildy also got me thinking: if CE, which has no crunch to speak of, is considered that well, then doesn't it deserve a system to go along with it? If someone didn't like the system, the fluff would still be valid, after all.
I'm crappy with crunch stuff; it doesn't hold my interest as fluff does. I've tentatively broached the topic of a CE system before and had a few responses, but I've decided to make a dedicated thread. For those of you familiar with CE: what system do you think would work best for it, and how would you go about modifying or tweaking that system to fit CE? For example, with DnD 3.5, divine magic would have to be cut, magic in general overhauled, alignment removed, core races redesigned, some new classes written up, etc.
For those not familiar with CE, the link is in my signature; here's also a much shorter, quick n' dirty overview (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?64554.last). CE is basically a dark, dystopian world, full of bizarre creatures and diabolic magic, where cvilization and reality itself aren't just falling apart but full-on rotting. I call it the Cadaverous Earth in reference to the Dying Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Earth_subgenre) sub-genre - it's a dying earth that's now beginning to smell, and while life persists, it's now modeled after parasites and detritovores, worms and leeches and vultures, and swarms of flesh-eating undead. A system for CE would need to include plenty of ways of differentiating races, and it would need to accomodate both urban-intrigue style games (7 huge cities remain) and wilderness-survival style games. The system of magic needs to cover things like demon-summoning, grafting, necromancy, and gory evocation-style spells; I've assumed a basically Vancian system of magic, with some tweaks, but magic is something I'm relatively flexible on.
Right now, I'm torn between doing a DnD/Pathfinder conversion or using FATE (http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate/) or FUDGE to build a system up from scratch. Cataclysmic Crow has also suggested Unhallowed Metropolis. The advantage of DnD/Pathfinder include plenty of mechanics for things like grafting and some nice racial mechanics; the advantages of FUDGE/FATE include greater freedom and a potentially deadlier game (I like the idea of fairly fragile characters).
So, to reiterate again: what system is best suited to CE's particular brand of "visceral baroque"? How could I adapt that system to fit CE? What systems shouldn't I consider? Why?
Thanks in advance for all replies.
I would definitely go with either a) a very generic system or b) designing your own system. Both avenues have their advantages and disadvantages, option b's mainly being that you can tailor it just the way you want, but a lot of people are doing their own nowadays (not necessarily a bad thing).
If you go this second route, I suggest looking around at some "fast play" rules you can find for systems and writing something up like that. Work out the basic stuff to make it playable, and either design a simple mechanic that makes improv easy, or add to it on a case-by-case basis. It's really not all that hard to design the core of a system, and once it is down, yourself and others won't have a hard time adding new rules and effects. Later on you might choose to expand or alter the core rules as you see fit, but I think it might be better to start small than to undertake a big project, especially where you've already got a very encompassing setting and don't want to make us wait for specific accompanying rules sets for the different bits. :D
EDIT: If you want to use a published system, I'll go ahead and recommend the nWoD Storytelling System. While the fluff bits may be mostly useless, the system itself is effective and has some built-in mechanics you want to use or modify (i.e. the Morality scale), and lends itself fairly well to custom additions for magic or supernatural effects. The races thing might be a problem, but depending on what extent you want to represent each one in the mechanics, automatic starting points in certain traits or skills, or increased point costs to buy into certain areas might suffice.
Thanks for the quick reply!
FUDGE/FATE feels like a kind of "quick-play" system in a sense, which is why I'm drawn to it: a skeleton of a system that can be fleshed out with my own details. For those with experience with those systems (SA? LC?) - are they quite easy to turn into fully-fledged systems? Are they well-suited to CE, or should I seek elsewhere? I've never actually played using FUDGE/FATE, only skimmed the free rule-sets.
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with them, but I just edited my post with a recommendation for the nWoD system. Don't know if you have experience with it, but it's a pretty mutable set of rules.
New World of Darkness, right? If so, I don't have much experience with it, but thanks for the reccomendation. Does it fall under the open gaming license or whatnot?
I don't believe it does; White Wolf kind of does their own thing. Where it's a different publisher and system it shouldn't really be an issue as long as you don't try to sell it. You can find homemade WoD stats and the like all over the place.
hI.
It's the Guiltmaster, come calling again. Glad to know that I have once again hit below the belt, and a number of members are doubled over. (What, am I supposed act like I didn't think of the consequences of what I was saying?)
However, I'd better stand up now and be counted.
I'm at work for a little while, but I'll try to get back on tonight. I have a list of questions I'd like to ask before I really sign on to any mechanic. But my first question is going to be something like, "So how would a class-based system hold up in CE?" and "What system will deal best with Nectar"?
I'll volunteer my system for it, and even write it around your setting, if you're interested. Links in my sig.
For some reason I don't see CE working out that well in more light/free-form games. There are so many interesting elements that people should have some kind of tangible link to it. Descriptions are all well and good, but when you actually see how different things are within the framework of a ruleset you start to really comprehend the differences. And your game lives and dies by details and differences.
I don't think class-based is the way to go either since most of the things you mention would pretty much require a class all to themselves. And i also agree that the characters should be fragile. It is not the accomplishments during life that matter, but rather the way they perish. :)
Hmm, a long time since i looked at it, but you might actually want to take a look at the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying... Perhaps.
I've already run adventures in Cadaverous Earth using both Fudge/FATE and The Riddle of Steel. Despite what a lot of folks might think, the systems I used had a hell of a lot of effect on the way the stories played out. FATE led to a quicker, more free-flowing narrative (we usually had a single roll determine combat) and relied a lot more on the players for creative description. TRoS was intimate and gory, but had a lot more dicerolling and book consultation (no more than D&D, really, but much more than FATE).
These two and Sorcerer are the only full-fledged systems I use these days (okay, there's Dogs in the Vineyard and Kill Puppies for Satan as well, but they're setting specific), so I can't really playtest any others for you. They both worked a treat in their own ways: I'd recommend rules-lite systems for a gaming group that is already well-versed in the setting material, and therefore knows the sort of thematic energy and tone they'll be contributing to.
EDIT: in my experience the benefit of a rules heavy system is that with players caught up in combat minutiae you spend less time coming up with plots, descriptions, or witty things for your NPC's to say. With a system like Fudge on the other hand the conflict resolution takes seconds, so you end up zipping from scene to scene with incredibly little downtime. Again, they're both good for me: only TRoS can truly convey the pure terror of a six-shootin' lilix (as in six guns) bearing down on you while you struggle drunkenly with your own pistol; or of an armed cestoid, plain and simple.
I don't know much about Warhammer Roleplay, but I do seem to recall there are professions (ratcatcher somehow sticks in my mind), and that randomization was heavily encouraged. Could be totally different, however.
I think a class system would be difficult but not impossible. Certain features would never be dependent on class; grafts, for example, wouldn't be class features, even if I designed a graftpunk class that got bonuses with grafts or something. I imagine low-level spellcasting as being fairly common, as well, so that could be represented by everyone taking a level of some sort of spellcasting class. The question would be where to draw the line for classes. Would magister be a class, or would magisters simply be represented by the aristocrat class, or a charisma-oriented class, for example? Would corsair be a class, or would it be a multi-class version of fighter/rogue? Etc.
Okay, just noticed SA's post!
First of all, I'm tremendously flattered that CE has actually been playtested! I would LOVE to hear more about how that turned out!!
More specifically, with reference to FUDGE/FATE, did you assign various Aspects or simply allow players to invent their own?
I'll look into Riddle of Steel.
Thanks everyone for the brainstorm so far - enormously helpful.
Instead of using classes with 20 levels, a "module" system might work. Where each module is a mini-class, yielding a few specific features (akin to the callings of UnMet). If you use a point buy system as the basic system, each module would be like a complex feat or perk.
Although SAs opinion might be a bit more wellfounded, i can't say that tRoS would be a good fit as such. It is a bit too... serious. And while CE deals with many advanced subjects it is not exactly made for hyperrealistic gaming.
WFRP does have professions, but they're not quite like D&D classes. For one thing you complete them and then you choose another. Just about everything is profession-based. How random stuff is kind of depends on the GM.
Another vote for TRoS, as always.
I might take more work - and thus time - on my part to accomplish, but I wonder if it might make sense for me to pick not one but a couple of systems, some requiring more tweaks than others, as potential systems to run CE in. Riddle of Steel or something like it for a pulpy combat-oriented game; some other system for a more intrigue-based game; maybe a brief "package" of changes/alterations/new monsters to run it in d20.
Much to ponder.
Personally, I would make a custom system. The way I see it, this allows you to get the exact feel of what you want. It lets you match it to the fluff directly. It also lets you control the simplicity/complexity.
Now it also involves a lot more effort on your part. So, do you want to spend time testing/trying out a whole bunch of systems? Or do you want to just build from the ground up?
I mean, one of the bigger things is what kind of dice do you want to use? Only d10? d20s? d6s? While systems do use different dice, once you accept one, your kinda at its mercy.
Now this is something I've been thinking about in general about table-top games. And I can see it applying to CE. Races, normally races are just something that affects your starting attributes, after that it has little impact on your character in a crunch sense (I'd imagine it matters when you RP, but that's just me). So why not make a system where your character evolves racially as well as skillfully or by class, or however it is people advace.
not sure i like the idea of evolving stricly on race, but racial modifiers to exp gain in certain areas makes tons of sense to me
Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhipnot sure i like the idea of evolving stricly on race, but racial modifiers to exp gain in certain areas makes tons of sense to me
Well no, I don't think strictly evolving on race would be all that different from class based games (ex, you'd be an Elf instead of Warrior, or Halfing instead of rogue). However I think that race is something often under-valued. I mean, to me it seems like something huge, you and your adventuring companions are completely different species! I think that would have a bigger impact then a slight difference in initial values.
It's like a cat adventuring with a dog, a llama and a snake. They just won't grow in the same ways.
I'd say, given the setting, that the option of starting as something monstrous is a given. And giving some unique abilities for monstrous players as they advance can only improve the game. Hell, monstrous advancement should be open at least a little to everybody, given the grafting, etc. right?
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhiphI.
It's the Guiltmaster, come calling again. Glad to know that I have once again hit below the belt, and a number of members are doubled over. (What, am I supposed act like I didn't think of the consequences of what I was saying?)
However, I'd better stand up now and be counted.
I'm at work for a little while, but I'll try to get back on tonight. I have a list of questions I'd like to ask before I really sign on to any mechanic. But my first question is going to be something like, "So how would a class-based system hold up in CE?" and "What system will deal best with Nectar"?
Still wondering about the nectar thing.
How Deadly do you want CE to be? How fast do you want PC growth? How wide rangeing are the skill/feat/etc choices? Do you want ressurection possible? Divine magic? Magical items? how common are magic items?
If CE is to keep its visceral feel (which i reckon would be one of the design tenets of a CE system), growth should never increase the power of a character, but rather his range of options. D20 is not visceral because characters can take immense amount of punishment by the end levels. This, i think, is not something that is wanted in a CE system.
Also, remember that balance is actually a secondary feature. D20 requires strict balance because it is all about the power. In a more fluffy game balance is only important insofar as no one overshadows each other, and with a wide range of possibilities and equal chance of getting whacked by a knife to the throat this becomes less likely.
I must admit that i think you should go for a custom system as well, although there is no reason not to steal elements from other systems : p
Nectar is going to give me a huge headache, I think. I'm defintiely keeping it - the ideas of the Elder Tree being ravished by vampire-machinery for its eldritch sap is just such a perfect encapsulation of the setting's themes. I think spellcasting is going to be the most complicated and scratch-built portion of the system; I'm going to go back through a long discussion I ahd with Vreeg and Crow about it, when I hammered out some ideas about how I wanted the system to work. I'll translate those into mechanical terms and then mesh it with whatever I choose to use.
The consensus so far is on a more-or-less scratch-built system, probably based off a set of building blocks; FUDGE/FATE comes immediately to mind.
This whole excercise will probably require some playtesting on my part.
Advancement is the tricky part. It's possible to make characters advance without drastically changing their fragility, and I've even seen some remarkably "visceral" ways of house-ruling d20, but that seems like pounding a sqare peg into a round hole. CE is, as you point out, Cataclysmic Crow, fluff-driven and deadly: a system that accomodates that is probably best. I migt at some hypothetical future date write up a d20 conversion primer for CE, but for now I think I should keep focusing on setting shopping, or maufacturing.
Race is a decent enough way to advance but if characters advance solely by race it's too limiting, in my opinion; every leechkin and hagman and ghul would feel the same, and I want variation. That of course would have been the big strength of the d20 system, but as Crow points out (yet again), so long as I include lots of options and details (possibly fleshing out a more barebones system), that feeling of versatility doesn't have to be lost.
Yeah. I'm hip to the fragility thing. Highest PC HP in Celtricia is 44, average is 18 and a falchion (to pick a pretty average weapon) does 2d4+1d8+10/d6, for a 26 max damage. Lethality is a good thing.
When it comes to lots of slow, little advancements, I can be useful.
I'm going to be scary, and tell you to go skill based.
Quote from: SteerpikeThis whole excercise will probably require some playtesting on my part.
Race is a decent enough way to advance but if characters advance solely by race it's too limiting, in my opinion; every leechkin and hagman and ghul would feel the same, and I want variation. That of course would have been the big strength of the d20 system, but as Crow points out (yet again), so long as I include lots of options and details (possibly fleshing out a more barebones system), that feeling of versatility doesn't have to be lost.
[/quote]
Race doesn't have to be the only way to advance, it could just be one way to advance. It could be optional. Etc.
What about GURPS? :D
Yeah, that's one I hadn't considered, but not for any particular reason. I have 0 experience with it but know that it's a fairly flexible and popular alternative to big systems like White Wolf's or d20.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe consensus so far is on a more-or-less scratch-built system, probably based off a set of building blocks.
To maybe expand and clarify that list...
1. Character Creation
Character creation methods include classes (like in D&D), careers (like in WHFRP), random models (like Traveller), a totally or almost totally skill based system (Runequest), full point buy (GURPS, Tri-Stat, Mutants and Masterminds), multiple methods (3, 3.5 D&D, some versions of Shadowrun IIRC), Priority (I'll explain if need be... I think Shadowrun 2e used it), keyword/feat/talent based (again I'll explain if need be... SW Saga was kind of like this, FUDGE/Fate I think are kind of like this except freeform? , my system is this and skills). I'm sure I'm missing a few.
2. Character Advancement
Different from character creation, and most of the above methods still work. Sometimes you create characters in a career based system and get points to spend more or less freely on skills through play, so just remember that how you start and how you keep going don't have to be identical.
3. Task Resolution
People say you have to pick a die and stick with it. That's bull. Prior to 3e, D&D had at least three different systems for resolving tasks. For most stuff you could roll under your abilities, rogues had something like a percentile based skill system, and for combat you wanted to roll high plus and maybe minus some mods. So just remember you don't necessarily have to pick only one method for determining if stuff works or not.
That said, just assuming dice rolling there's roll over, roll under, dice pool variations of both, and percentile systems (pretty much roll under on a d100).
For both roll under and roll over you can add/subtract mods for difficulty or just scale the number (or even the type) of dice.
More dice means a steeper curve on roll under/over. Curves on roll under tend to minimize odds of rolling low if you're really good or luckily rolling high if you suck at something. I'm not terribly sure about dice pools.
There are other dice methods, and some gimmicks you can play with, like exploding dice (if you roll the max on the die, you roll another die) and risk dice (where you can increase the potential effect of a check by increasing the difficulty / risk... my combat system uses something like this).
Outside of dice there are many options. Cards can be interesting, if you want to leave things only halfway to chance (players still get good and bad "rolls", but can decide which rolls are which out of their hands).
4. Combat
Combat is a number of individual components really. D&D has always had kind of bare-bones and abstract combat, but there are a number of things you can add to make things more interesting (and you can make combat lethal in other ways than scaling hp and hit/miss odds for it).
Special stuff happens on high damage / criticals. I'll get into what that stuff might be later, but for now suffice to say that there's two main ways you can go about deciding when these things happen (well... besides "always" and "never"). For high damage, it can be either a flat value for everybody or a derived value that varies from person to person (and can be upped depending on the armor). For criticals, it happens on the luckiest rolls on the dice. In either case, one can't predict these things as well as one can predict one's hp, making combat scarier and more chaotic. Conversely, some things could happen on low hp as well. For examples of this, check out 4e's bloodied condition.
Bonus damage on high damage / critical. Like in D&D. Adds lethality by allowing one-hit kills in a system (hp) specifically set up so most of the time that doesn't happen.
Penalties on high damage / critical. Like in Star Wars SAGA. Get hit hard and you'll be less and less able to function. Favors a slow steady decline. Doesn't necessarily up lethality, but can make inferior foes scarier if you're badly hurt.
Random, variable injuries on high damage / critical. Like Cherries for martial artists in Unknown Armies or any number of hit location tables. Depending on what the injuries are and how likely it is that a character gets injured, this can up the lethality a *lot* by including the possibility of k.o. and death at random no matter what you're current hit point total is. It's also a great way to include the possibility of permanent injury, which can scare players worse than death oddly enough. Continuing play with a blind multiple amputee is a little freakier than rolling up a new character (although obviously this is a pretty extreme example... and in your setting it would just be an excuse to break out the grafts).
Called Shots can induce some of the effects above at your option, or low hit point totals could move a person along the penalty track or what have you. There's no need to have it all random. It's also possible to include both the random and intentional thing (my system has both random injuries on high damage and called shots).
Besides all that you can have an active or a passive defense against attacks. An active defense means you roll to avoid getting hit, and often means you can only do this a limited number of times. It can make large numbers of foes scary no matter how well you dodge in a one on one (or even three on one) fight. Passive defense is easier and requires less rolling, and you can devise rules to cover when you can't dodge (see D20) but getting blindsided or ganged up on will require special rules in that case.
There are a bunch of other things to consider (DR or lessen the odds to hit for armor, or both and how you determine weapon damage spring to mind).
5. Magic
Not even gonna touch this one. There are so many ways to do this stuff.
I think what would serve you best is a system where character creation is point buy. This allows you to steadily increase the options at a leisurely pace without having to make entire new classes just to fit in a new idea. The system should after all also be one that fits your own style, which involves new elements every so often.
Also, point buy systems allow for drawbacks, something your systemd definitely has to have. :)
Although more or less any method can be used for task resolution, you should perhaps just go with something simple like 3d6 or 2d10. 2d10 is good because it is a bell curve (if not the greatest bell curve) and has more simple probabilities since every result has a chance of happening that is a factor of 1/100. So there is 1/100 for getting 20, 2/100 for getting 19 and so on until 11 (the average) with 10/100.
And although Gurps might seem to fit well at first sight, i honestly believe it is too complex for a visceral game like CE. But Steerpikes choice i guess...
[blockquote=Cataclysmic Crow]And although Gurps might seem to fit well at first sight, i honestly believe it is too complex for a visceral game like CE. But Steerpikes choice i guess...[/blockquote]While obviously I'm going to be the one choosing the system, I'm here to ask for input, and consider yours very valuable - I think you intuitively understand want I mean when I say I want a visceral sort of system: gritty, violent, packed with opportunities for visitng all sorts of ills on people, and with fragile characters, for whom death is only a bullet or sword-stroke away. Too much detail and attention to game balance for tactical reasons tends to counteract the "visceral" feel because it makes combat into a very compelx chess-game rather than a life-and-death struggle; DnD is clearly guilty of this at the higher levels of play, when characters have massive hitpoints, are tooled up with loads of magic, and generally walking around being invulnerable. I don't have a ton of experience with GURPS, but if it clogs up task resolution and combat with an overabundance of complexities in striving for game balance and/or life simulation, it might not be right for CE either.
Beejaz, amazing post about the different facets of system design. I'll be rereading it frequently qhile I strie to find or craft a system for CE.
Really, the sort of system I ideally want is one that can embody the two halves of CE, the decadently civilized and the raw, post-aopcalyptic stuff: the visceral and the baroque.
Everyone's input so far, and many of the system suggestions, have been excellent. Now I have to really get down to teh nuts and bolts...
You might look at 3rd Edition Shadowrun for ideas concerning both magic and lethality.
What do you think the playable races will be?
GURPS is, as the abbreviation states, a generic universal system, so I'm sure it is possible to play it with a more visceral style if need be. I just feel, personally, that it is an ill fit from what I've seen.
It's like with tRoS, no matter how much you modify it, it will always have that medieval/classical feel to it that doesn't suit more fantastic settings. A system can flavor a game just as much as a setting can in some situations.
Good Lord, yes.
It's a paintbrush, a creative tool, and with the wrong tool, you can't make what you want to.
Heh, i thought that comment would be something you'd like Vreeg. :)
Quote from: SteerpikeBeejaz, amazing post about the different facets of system design. I'll be rereading it frequently qhile I strie to find or craft a system for CE.
Thanks. I'm sure I'm missing some stuff. Anyway, I'm interested to see what sort of system you go for. Personally, I'd advise against point buy, at least the way GURPS, Tri-Stat, and M&M do it. Same for classes that level. I mean, either could be made to work, but you'd have to be really careful about it.
Why would you argue against point buy?
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowWhy would you argue against point buy?
Existing systems are way too malleable, which comes with its own set of problems (there can be multiple ways to build the same power/ability, each of which comes with a different cost and effect). Then there's powergaming by sinking everything into one facet of your character, powergaming by getting a bunch of extra points at a reduced cost for gear (a bunch of systems have this, and will even let you take further drawbacks on it so you can abuse it further), doing the same for summoning, milking every last inconsequential disadvantage, and a bunch of other stuff. Character creation can be really time consuming, and it really sucks to spend an hour or two building a character and then get shot in the face on the first die roll (and extreme example, but high lethality means you go through lots of characters). Again, not all point buy systems are like this, but starting with one of the existing biggies can get you here.
A partial point buy, the way many skill systems are, and the way most system handles money would be fine. Everything's 1 for 1 with most skill systems and fixed cost for money. So if you applied that to other areas, fixed costs for fixed abilities (no levels or power mods or other bells and whistles) could be fine. And a 1 for 1 skill buy (so you don't have those hangnail points at the end) might work too.
Oh, so when you say point buy you mean a skill-less system where everything depends on the buying of advantages?
Really, it shouldn't be too hard to fix the problems you mention. Put a limit on the number of drawbacks you can take (UnMet doesn't let you get more than 10 points for example), dividing things into categories (so one point buy system for stats, one for professions, one for skills, one for advantages/disadvantages) to prevent focused gaming, and powergaming doesn't really pay off in a high lethality game (even if you have maximum toughness you still die if you get a knife in your throat).
Also, you can install failsafes to keep death at a minimum at the cost of something else; UnMet is build in such a way that if you mess up you can get a reroll by increasing your corruption, and you can even escape death in certain situations by increasing your corruption. It should be said that you will eventually lose your character to said corruption. CE could benefit from a somewhat similar system of some kind. A rotting of character in terms with the theme of the setting.
From Left Field.
Alternative Systems.
Likely not at all suitable.
1. Music
The scales provide about 28 options between black and white keys. Chords correspond to combat tactics and skill maneouvers. The players play the music to determine success or failure. The better sounding combination of chords (the chords to be played are predetermined in part by player attributes) is deemed the winner in skill contests.
ACEG (7x2)
2. Colors
The CMYK colour wheel is used to determine statistics and information. Each colour corresponds to certain spheres of influence, from Purple's social skills to Green's bargaining skills, to Red's combat skills.
A random number generator is used each turn to determine where on the CMYK scale each skill test ends up. As people level up, they can gain more power in moving a random rolled number in a certain direction or to move it into a certain sphere of colour.
--
Both systems obviously need more development.
Good luck.
3. Losing card System
Each player starts with 52 playing cards, each of which has certain abilities. as their characters age, they lose cards and abilities, but they also gain the opportunity to add "flags" to the cards that they keep.
Each flag adds extra abilities and skills to the remaining cards.
Great accomplishments can also add to the amount of cards someone has.
Flags can be reused although the used cards are burned- not to be used again until a level up.
Once discarded for example at level 1, you may never again use the queen of hearts. but at level 2 you may use it again as replenished... and you may flag it.
4. Jackson Pollock
2 overlaid images-
One is an inkblot rorschach test; the other is a list of statistics and skills. each player draws their own rorscach test at hte beginning of hte game and then overlays it over the skills list. That determines their skills.
As the game progresses, each player gains new pictures which they overlay on a statistics chart. As they level up, their chart gains new holes which they can use to choose new options when they are fighting a battle or doing a skill test.
5. Minesweeper/Shell Game
Drop dice into cans. Shake. The amount of dice is determined by skill in that particular skill. Dice are then turned over and shown.
The GM then shuffles the dice and hides them under cans.
The player must follow the dice and select the best dice that they want to have as their roll.
6. The Whirligig
Place a Spinning Top on a grid. where it ends it spin is the determination of the outcome.
When gaining levels, the player can spin multiple tops or can gain the ability to touch the top and make it end in a certain place. Or they can spin on a more favorable grid with better outcomes for the player's determination
======LOSING CARD SYSTEM IN ACTION
Symbolizing the pumping, the grinding, the leveling, the losing, the dying, the suffering, the wilting, the decaying Cadaverous Earth- the characters do not so much grow as they fall with the losing card system.
Everyone starts out with the fruits of fate- a certain number of cards which they are dealt. the cards symbolize strength in the four attributes- Mind (Diamonds), Body (Spades), Spirit (Clubs), Heart (Hearts).
The characters are special- they have more fate than others- each player holds about 10 cards in their hands. (selected or randomized).
On Day 1
Ulemna the gunslinger meets a crazed leechkin in a darkened alley. Ulemna can barely see and get a shot off.
His "life card" has a flag on it for "low visibility" and a flag on it for "fear", which both affect his rolls.
When he shoots, the location of shots are determined as in Battletech/Mechwarrior. Each creature has a bodyskin with locations for shots.
The head may have 2 dots, the arms 3 each, the torso 10. damage transfers in if a bodypart is blown off.
Ulema rolls to shoot. He rolls a 15. The leechkin rolls a 12 to dodge, then plays a fate card- a Spade for strength to resist the bullet. He rolls a 15 and the spade is in play- the bullet will do 15 less damage than otherwise.
The 15 is negatively affected by both flags- roll 1d4-1 for each flag's affect. Flag 1 affects him (1), flag 2 affects (0). so ulema still hits.
Ulema then rolls for the location of his shot (since his 15 beat the 12). He rolls a 6- the leechkin's head.
Now he rolls for damage- 1d6. Which is less than the 15 so the leechkin resists the shot (!)
... I don't know what to say to that LC :P
Although yes, one shouldn't feel constrained to common forms of task resolution. If you wanted to you could play yahtzee to determine your skill checks. The only thing it really requires is some form of randomizer.
Based on your minesweeper, i might have a slightly more serious proposal:
Your skill+attribute adds up to a number of dice which you then put in a bag together with a number of black dice equal to your depravity/bad luck points. Then you pick a die from the bag. If it is white you roll it and use the result OR pick a new die and reroll. If you get a black die you fail. Obviously, the more often you attempt to reroll, the greater are the chances of you hitting upon a bad luck die and thus failing. I can imagine that would be interesting in-game. Although there is a pretty good chance of happening upon black dice unless the pool is reasonably large. Probably works best with d10.
CC- that's a fairly neat idea-especially for magic in Steerpike's world. It could perhaps determine backfires of failed magic, etc. But it would also work nicely for combat- and would punish greed and would help symbolize decay- it seems it would suit Steerpike's aesthetic. (also please see the post above (into which I edited an example of a system in action).
Despite their bizarreness in some aspects, all the suggested systems are serious, but not necessarily seriously appropriate for Steerpike. They would certainly suit some niche games.
Steerpike, if you do decide to create a new system I'd be more than happy to help out. It could be actively discussed through the chat or AIM/MSN or whatnot.
Hmm, LC, the example still seems a little opaque to me...
? I am not sure what is unclear about it?
-
LOSING CARD SYSTEM IN ACTION
Symbolizing the pumping, the grinding, the leveling, the losing, the dying, the suffering, the wilting, the decaying Cadaverous Earth- the characters do not so much grow as they fall with the losing card system.
Everyone starts out with the fruits of fate- a certain number of cards which they are dealt. the cards symbolize strength in the four attributes- Mind (Diamonds), Body (Spades), Spirit (Clubs), Heart (Hearts).
The characters are special- they have more fate than others- each player holds about 10 cards in their hands. (selected or randomized).
Character Generation
Ulema the Gunslinger
1 Life Card (to record information and statistics)
10 Fate Cards
On the Life Card:
10 points to spend on the main categories. each point in a category is then distributed amongst its sub-categories
(#Ranks/Max Ranks (determined by subcategories x 2)
Strength (2/10)
---Throw
---Punch (1)
---Kick (1)
---Jump
---Climb
Aim (3/4)
---Precision (2)
---Distance (1)
Vigor (1/4)
(Once injured, can keep standing and fighting)
---Toughness (1)
---Sustainability
Speed
---Distance
---Acceleration
Tactical (1)
---Dodge
---Defense
---Limberness
Charm/Glibness (1)
---Tact
---Quick-Thinking (1)
Cleverness/Idea (1/4)
---Street-Smarts (1)
---Gather Info
Knowledge (1)
---History
---Magic
---General (1)
On Day 1
Ulemna the gunslinger meets a crazed leechkin in a darkened alley. Ulemna can barely see and get a shot off.
His "life card" has a flag on it for "low visibility" and a flag on it for "fear", which both affect his rolls negatively.
When he shoots, the location of shots are determined as in Battletech/Mechwarrior. Each creature has a bodyskin with locations for shots and rolls must be made to determine where the shots will descend.
The head may have 2 dots, the arms 3 each, the torso 10. damage transfers in if a bodypart is blown off.
Ulema rolls to shoot. He rolls a 15.
The leechkin rolls a 12 to dodge, then plays a fate card- a Spade for strength to resist the bullet. He rolls a 15 and the spade is in play- the bullet will do 15 less damage than if the leechkin had not played his card.
The 15 that Ulema rolled is negatively affected by both flags- roll 1d4-1 for each flag's affect. Flag 1 affects him (1), flag 2 affects (0). so Ulema still hits.
Ulema then rolls for the location of his shot (since his 15 beat the 12). He rolls a 6- the leechkin's head.
Now he rolls for damage- 1d6. Which is less than the 15. Damage however is also affected by Precision, and Ulema has 2 precision points. The precision points are added to the damage (6) +2 because they hit in a particularly vital area. However, the Leechkin had a dodge resistance of 15, so the leechkin resists the shot (!)
Round 2
The leechkin jumps and slashes at Ulema with his claws, raking at Ulema's face. The leechkin rolls an 8 to hit. Ulema rolls a 6 to dodge. But Ulema has a 1 to Dodge in his skill sheet so his roll becomes a 7. This is still lower than the 8. Ulema also is negatively affected by the two flags to the tone of -2; so his roll is really a 5.
Ulema decides play a fate card, so he puts down the one of spades. The One of spades allows him to roll a 1d6 to add to his roll. Ulema rolls a 3, which gives him an 8. He has now tied the leechkin, so we must determine which of the two is faster.
Each race has a base speed; if they are equal then the players will roll for speed (acceleration). The winner (minus any negative flags) wins the conflict and acts first. In this case, the leechkin rolls a 20 and Ulema rolls a 1. The leechkin acts first and rakes Ulema.
The leechkin rolls a 4, for the torso, and hits Ulema's torso for 1d6 (3) points of damage and steals a fate card. (When a creature wins despite the opposing player's playing of a fate card, they get to steal a random fate card from that player's hand)
--
Better explanation?
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowGURPS is, as the abbreviation states, a generic universal system, so I'm sure it is possible to play it with a more visceral style if need be. I just feel, personally, that it is an ill fit from what I've seen.
It's like with tRoS, no matter how much you modify it, it will always have that medieval/classical feel to it that doesn't suit more fantastic settings.
Are you saying GURPS will also always have that medieval/classical feel to it? Because, honestly, the feel I always got from it was more of a modern/sci-fi angle. Maybe this is just because the few GURPS games that I played in have all been oriented in that direction, but the game worked well... so maybe there is hope after all. ;)
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: Cataclysmic CrowGURPS is, as the abbreviation states, a generic universal system, so I'm sure it is possible to play it with a more visceral style if need be. I just feel, personally, that it is an ill fit from what I've seen.
It's like with tRoS, no matter how much you modify it, it will always have that medieval/classical feel to it that doesn't suit more fantastic settings.
I think CC was saying tRoS has that feel. Gurp's problem is the opposite. It can be anything, which is fantastically flexible, but is specializes in nothing, which makes it 'good-but-not-great' for any particular feel or setting.
Actually, I felt TRoS could adapt to different era pretty well, you just have to pick and choose which weapons/armor. A number of the weapons and maneuvers are more Renaissance, anyway.
@LC: So each card has a special power or can a card of a specific suit be applied to every task that falls under the suit category (mind, heart, spirit, body)?
@Sparkletwist: Oh yeah, i didn't mean that GURPS had a medieval feel! That was directed at tRoS. GURPS can maintain and support any feel, the issues with GURPS are of a more mechanic nature. It is a complex system and it has some of the same drawbacks as 4e: the rules are designed to allow so many things without unbalancing the game that the abilities/feats seem formulaic and "soulless". I'm not saying it is bad, it is a very thought through system, just that it has certain drawbacks.
@Phoenix: Different era it could do, that was not what i was arguing. It has trouble adapting to a different "feel". It is a somewhat simulationist game, basing its fighting on classical medieval combat and its character decisions are mostly within the realm of a feudal setting. A fantastic (as in includes fantasy, not as in great although it certainly qualifies as that as well) setting like CE can simply not be captured in a system designed that way. Unless you do a complete rewriting of the rulebook i will almost guarantee that using tRoS will make the game more... down-to-earth and grounded for lack of a better phrase. It seeps over whether you want it to or not. I can tell you from personal experience since i tried using it for my own game.
It sounds more like the issue is not that it's medieval, it's that it's grounded in realistic combat. This will make any combat heavy campaign feel gritty, which of course is not ideal for high fantasy or other surreal settings. I'd probably agree with that.
CC- yes, that's about it. Give the players options for what to do each turn with their cards to modify actions. But as they play, they lose options and rarely gain options anew.
Wow, lots of posts. Been gone for a short while.
The Losing Cards system is interesting - I think it'd be perfect for a wild west themed game, where the cards mesh thematically with the feel of the setting. But I'll ponder it more.
I don't have enough experience with TRoS to really comment in depth, but I'm not sure it precludes "fantasy" as such. The combat system, which seems to be the focus in the discussion here, simply means that you probably can't kill a giant by yourself, not that the giant can't exist. The fantasy elements can still be present, but they are more likely to be beyond your ability to influence or harm, at least through physical means.
I'm not being entirely altruistic in discussing TRoS - In working on a system for my own setting, I've found myself appropriating or adapting a lot of TRoS concepts I really like, to the point where I'm wondering if it's necessary to re-invent the wheel at all. I'm interested in people's reasons why it wouldn't be as appropriate for a "fantasy" or "surreal" setting. Now grittier, I'll give you...
I think we weren't saying it was wrong for fantasy, but that it would not be ideal for high fantasy as we usually see it (heroically).
Alright, then. I can emphatically agree with that.
It can accomadate classical fantasy (which it was built for indeed), but it wasn't made for the more surreal elements that you see in settings like CE.
Graftings, ubiquitous magic, cinematic/heroic sequences, non-humanoid races: these are elements that tRoS will have a good deal of trouble handling.
Also, reading the rulebook has a greater influence on the tone of a game than you'd think.
Not to say that tRoS isn't good of course. I frequently recommend it to anyone building serious combat systems, and for the game i currently run in the UnMet system i even took the liberty of adapting their Spiritual Attributes.
I adapted TRoS for sci-fi at one point, and had cybernetics and alien races. So I imagine it can do grafts and non-human races.
I probably wouldn't use it's built in magic system for most games, though. It's got potential, but...I think the magic system is a unique flavor to most settings.
Quote from: PhoenixI adapted TRoS for sci-fi at one point, and had cybernetics and alien races. So I imagine it can do grafts and non-human races.
I probably wouldn't use it's built in magic system for most games, though. It's got potential, but...I think the magic system is a unique flavor to most settings.
Magic System adds unique flavor?
Sounds right to me... ;)
How does this sound to people: I scratch build a system using the basic building blocks of FUDGE, making combat substantially more detailed than normal for FUDGE while still maintaining lethality and greater speed than in DnD; I borrow and adapt mechanics from various other sources (grafts, sanity, whatever), tweaking them sufficiently so that they feel integrated into a single system rather than a pastiche of unrelated parts. Playtest liberally, modify as needed, and ultimately scrap if it isn't working. The magic system will take the most work but I might borrow some of the overchanneling mechanics from an old Wheel of Time RPG to reflect nectar-overload.
I'm acquiring PDFs of TROS as we speak, so if it totally blows my mind and proves adaptable I'll either pirate its combat system or use that as my base instead, heavily modified.
Sound like a plan?
Sounds like a great plan.
Wheel of Time RPG... that sounds familiar. GL Steerpike, the only thing that raises a flag to me is that it seems very pastiche or mix and match. Could potentially cause some conflict.
If you need any help, or a sounding board, I'm usually around.
I'm going to try my best to aviod the mix-and-max while still keeping my eyes open for useful ideas. Most likely all of them will be fully translated into FUDGE/Visceral-Baroque terms rather than simply ripped from their parent systems and stapled together. Although frankly that image suits CE rather well, if you think about it (graftpunks, waxborn, half a dozen of my other chimerae).
I'll definitely be referring to the Guild frequently as I build this, and its almost certainly going to take quite awhile. I'm not going to stop writing fluff for CE or working on my other projects (Goblin and Xell, right now) and I already don't have a superabundance of time; that said I've gotten pretty attached to CE and FUDGE is purpose-made to be easy to use and build systems out of, so the first larval stages of Visceral-Baroque may be appearing soon.
Thanks everyone for their help so far. Any commentss, suggestions, criticisms, etc can all still go here, or if you happen to know of a system that hasn't been mentioned that'd be perfect for CE, post that here too.
Is this the system you're using Steerpike? Or do you have a newer commercial version? (http://www.fudgerpg.com/files/pdf/fudge_1995.pdf)
That's the version I was thinking of using, yes; as a starting point, at least.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out.
my biggest problem with fudge really are those annoying dice...
If you want you can replace the fudge dice with 1d4-1d4 or 1d6-1d6 and get similar results. Of course, in either case the range of results is one off (-3 to +3 for d4s, -5 to +5 for d6s) but the dice are more easily available, especially if you go for d6s.
Instead of subtracting you could just roll two d4/d6 (one black for bad luck and one white for good luck) and then the lowest roll counts (black is a penalty and if they are equal it's zero).
Less math and probably a more interesting visual. I'm considering using that system in some way myself.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowInstead of subtracting you could just roll two d4/d6 (one black for bad luck and one white for good luck) and then the lowest roll counts (black is a penalty and if they are equal it's zero).
Less math and probably a more interesting visual. I'm considering using that system in some way myself.
The results are pretty drastically different from fudge, though, aren't they? If that's the basis, the subtraction thing would be closer and maybe easier to adapt. And it leaves most rolls as 1, 2, or 3. Not a lot of variability there.
But elaborating on your example... take a bigger die... maybe in the d8 to d12 range. Take the lower if you're untrained and the higher if you're trained. As for take the lower/higher, I don't know that a color difference is as necessary as it would be with subtraction.
The black/white version gives exactly the same probabilities as the subtraction method. You had me doubt it for a second there, but i checked with excel and they are just spread out in a different pattern. :)
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowThe black/white version gives exactly the same probabilities as the subtraction method. You had me doubt it for a second there, but i checked with excel and they are just spread out in a different pattern. :)
I am... not understanding then... you said you'd roll two dice and take the lowest? In that case to start with only 1 through 4 (or 1 through 6) would be possible, as opposed to -3 through 3 (or -5 through 5).
No, you take the lowest and the black dice is a "bad die" i.e. it gives a penalty. So if you roll a White 1 and a Black 4 you get +1 but if you roll a black 5 and a white 6 you get -5.
Wouldn't be very fudgy if there were no penalties ^^
Sorry, should probably have explained it better
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowNo, you take the lowest and the black dice is a "bad die" i.e. it gives a penalty. So if you roll a White 1 and a Black 4 you get +1 but if you roll a black 5 and a white 6 you get -5.
Wouldn't be very fudgy if there were no penalties ^^
Sorry, should probably have explained it better
Ah, I see. That does work. And using d4s it would give a range identical to fudge dice too. Nice.
The result of many hours of theorising about how to best get a negative die result ^^
Ooh I like the black die/white die thing! Although partly since I have an inordinate number of red dice and partly because red and black suit CE better than white and black I think I'd make it black/red die. But great idea, Crow! Snagged!
Feel free :)
I'm still going to use it for my own though i reckon ^^
Quote from: SteerpikeWow, lots of posts. Been gone for a short while.
The Losing Cards system is interesting - I think it'd be perfect for a wild west themed game, where the cards mesh thematically with the feel of the setting. But I'll ponder it more.
No problem. Good luck with the idea you went with.
I adopted the idea from Castle Falkenstein and adapted a version of the system in a LARP wild west game at a convention. It does work, but you need to have the right setting for it.
~LD.
So as may be quite obvious I haven't exactly hammered out a lot of rules for Visceral Baroque yet. I certainly haven't abandoned the idea (earlier Goblin had occupied me; currently grad school and moving across the country have absorbed my attention). The plan remains the same (scratch build from FATE with souped up combat and a custom magic system).
However, I recently downloaded Iron Heroes for the first time (after Kindling mentioned it) and was struck by this description: [blockquote=Iron Heroes]Civilization is fragile. It exists in a few shards scattered across the world. In many areas, barbarism reigns supreme. Mankind is its own worst enemy, as the few pockets of civilization not only from terrible monsters and humanoid tribes, but from barbarians who would loot, pillage, and slay for their own short term benefit.[/blockquote]This struck me as pretty close to what I`m imagining for CE.
What would people think of this: taking Iron Heroes, throwing in the graft mechanics and some of the Vancian magic from 3.5 with some scratch-built mechanics for nectar, and beefing up the social mechanics to cover the `baroque` aspect of the setting? Terrible idea or might work well? I`d been thinking about creating a d20 primer for CE anyway, as an alternative to Visceral Baroque - would Iron Heroes work? There could still be a smattering of magical items here and there, just no ubiquitous +1 swords and wands, which I don`t envision for CE anyway. This wouldn`t exclude the possibility of a FATE-based CE system, of course...
Oh, yeah, can't believe we haven't mentioned Iron Heroes in this thread. I have the book and it's probably my favorite D20 system. I think CE might work excellently in Iron Heores. Probably also easier than beginning with a FATE conversion.
Iron Heroes is more visceral, which is a plus, it is not designed around magic, which is a plus, it can be easily modified with additional abilities for each class, again a plus and it is potentially awesome (obviously also a plus). Only slight problem is the humano-centric design, but it can be worked round I'm sure.
Thanks for the reply, and glad you approve of the idea. One big plus to at least starting with an Iron Heroes conversion instead of a FATE conversion is that it'll probably require substantially less playtesting, since the basic mechanics have already been thoroughly playtested. Plus I'm frankly more familiar with d20 anyway so things like race design will be easier.
np. And yeah, you might as well start with converting it into a system you're familiar with. Then you can go crazy with FATE later.
Based on what Salacious Angel had said about FATE and CE it would be tricky to create a feel of visceral combat in. Not impossible, perhaps, but difficult; combat might be over quickly and be relatively deadly, but as a result most players would probably avoid combat. To counteract this I was going to develop more in-depth combat mechanics, but just imagining this process gave me a headache. I think this a better solution, at least for now.
Hmm, I'll have to pick my old copy of the book off the shelf so I can provide some useful help :)
I don't know... IH seems pretty human centric, pretty combat centric, magic unfriendly and social skills lite. Plus the tactical combat (which might be a non-plus? but not a minus?) and the high survival rate (from the looks of things)... and the classes.
You'll end up having to scratch build magic, work a lot on social, scratch build all your races (which I guess you'll have to do regardless) etc. And powering down the combat / upping the lethality might be a chore.
It has ideas worth pilfering, but I don't know how well it'll fit long term.
My advice is to pick a core mechanic and a method for generating stats (the hard part) and then just hang some cool stuff on it to suit the game.
So for combat, for example, there's no need to go into as much detail as IH does. Just steal the freeform stunt mechanic idea. You don't even have to go about it the way they did... just give some DCs and say how hard they are and let GMs make it up on the fly. Stunts plus crit charts (easier to write than they look) will be more than enough to make combat fast and deadly. Lastly, low to medium hp and wildly variable weapon damage (probably 2-3 dice with the high end being lethal and the low end being a bruise... so there's unpredictable extremes with things weighted in the middle) and you're good.
The biggest cons for IH I can see:
- over-long combat/not deadly enough
- insufficient social skills
The magic system (which I'd have to scratch build anyway) I'd probably adapt from a mixture of the arcanist and dnd wizard with some nectar mechanics thrown in. IH is low magic essentially in the sense that it doesn't want characters as walking mini-marts of magic; it'd be relatively easy to "up the magic" in IH by throwing in a few more magic items (probably predominantly those that don't simply give stat bonuses, more wondrous items or weapons with special abilities) and giving plenty of individuals the spellcasting class. There aren't a lot of spellcasting types in CE: no clerics, no druid equivalents really, definitely no paladins, no bard-like characters...
The races are not really an issue - it's pretty easy to re-imagine IH with non-human races. I don't think they really screw with the balance much.
That said, the prospect of a more scratch-built/custom system still holds great appeal, and I'm not throwing it out in favor of IH just yet (if ever).
Insofar as the classes go they're actually an attraction in most senses. While classless can be fun I'm not steadfastly anti-class; the big deterrent from something like D&D was that I felt the classes didn't fit well with CE. Rangers, paladins, monks, druids, clerics, and bards all don't fit at all; sorcerers/wizards would need to be tweaked. That would have left fighter, rogue, and barbarian, and I would have ended up scratch-building classes, which would take forever. IH's classes, by contrast, are much more nicely suited to the savage/post-apocalyptic world of CE; even the arcanist is closer to a CE witch than some spellcasters.
I'll have to think about this.
As far as social skills go, they do have a whole slew of social feats and the thief has many social skills. I don't think they are much worse of as far as social mechanics go compared to many other systems.
If i remember correctly they have Massive Damage rules which come into play fairly often, so it is medium-deadly. Otherwise I'm sure magic and grafts will speed it up nicely.
Buying a race for a background perk and otherwise levelling it out with a disadvantage for each advantage should balance out nicely.
You could also up the magic by allowing players to pick magical talents as i think i mentioned earlier.
I really like the classes; they actually boost your creativity by letting you envision all the possible things you can create with them, rather than drain it all away by forcing you to put your character in a box like i feel DnD does.
Here's a very rough vision of what the Witch class mechanics might look like - let me know if this isn't remotely workable:
Witches learn and cast spells as Wizards do but must make Invocation Checks to power their spells, with DC's equal to 10 + the spell level, using d20 + Intelligence bonus + half the caster's level (rounding down).
Failure results in the spell fizzling. Failure by more than 5 results in temporary ability damage to Intelligence equal to the level of the spell being cast (plus the spell fizzles). Failure by more than 10 also results in 1d4 damage per spell level as eldritch forces sear the Witch's body.
Though Witches in the Cadaverous Earth can take Metamagic Feats they can also replicate their effects using a drug called nectar. While using nectar a Witch can apply a Metamagic effect to any of their spells, but their spells do not use a higher level spell slot; for example, a 3rd level empowered fireball, which would normally use a 5th level slot, would still only use a 3rd level slot. However, the spell level used to calculate the DC of the Invocation check used to cast the spell is increased '" so the DC to cast the fireball would be 15, not 13. Thus a nectar-user can cast more powerful spells but at greater risk of madness and damage.
Sounds like a clever way around it. Using a pool of metamagic points depending on the amount of consumed nectar would provide a distinct advantage to the nectar-user.
Right - so a small dose might allow for an empowered spell and a stilled spell, or one maximized spell, while a larger dose might allow for several maximized spells or a maximized+empowered spell (I forget, can metamagic be stacked like that?). Thus the larger the dose the more powerful spells can be cast, but the greater the risk. A nectar junkie who takes a big dose could start slinging very big spells around (much more powerful than he usually could cast) but if he critically fails his Invocation check he's going to lose a lot of Int and take a fair bit of damage as well.
EDIT: A question I'm pondering - should ghilan have the Undead type? Would simply adding the Undead type give a race an LA of +1, or higher? I'm leaning towards no on this point - they might count as Undead for the effect of spells etc but would have far fewer Undead traits...
metamagic stacks as far as i remember.
And make your own "undead" subtype. the undead type is a pretty powerful template.
Good plan.
BTW - and totally off topic - how are you enjoying Poe?
I've been busy studying so I have only read the gold-bug and MS in a Bottle and Into the Maelstrom, but I think he is pretty great. Actually surprisingly good considering the age. I just began reading the Murders in Rue Morgue which is supposed to be one of his best ones as far as I'm aware.
[note]This probably doesn't apply to this specific system. Even if this thread wasn't already on it's fourth page of brainstorming, while this concept may be something to consider, I'm not certain that it's right for the tone of the setting. That said, I feel this is something that needs to be said.[/note]
Quote from: RantThere's a lot of suggestions in this thread for task resolutions, and quite a few of them (see: Light Dragon's posts) are interesting, quirky, and non-standard. Some of these-- at least as presented so far-- are probably too quirky for practical use in any system (again, see: Light Dragon's posts). Just about everyone here-- myself included, mind you-- seem to think that even the most novel and inventive of these suggestions could probably be hammered into something very workable. That's good and fine, but everyone seems to insist that randomization is key to task resolution. Is it really too far out there to think that a character is aware of how much effort they're putting into a given action? When you, for example, tap a key on your keyboard, do you think "well, I might not be using enough force to hit the key, or I might be hitting it with as much as 400 pounds of force; it's somewhere between the two, though"? I honestly doubt it. You have a very good (although not exact) idea of just how much force you need to use, and you try to use an according amount force. That is to say, you don't lightly brush your fingers against the keys, nor do you use a mallet. It's the same way with anything: picking up objects, opening doors, catching a bus, etc.
"But SDragon," you might ask, "if we know just how much effort we put into an action, won't we already know if we succeed or not?" Not necessarily. You only need one unknown variable to put success into question. traditionally in RPGs that has been the dice. I think realistically, it's the DC that provides the unknown variable. Sure, you pushed the door as hard as you thought you needed to, but maybe it's heavier than it looks. Or maybe it's actually lighter than it looks and you end up pulling a Kramer. This is even more obvious with things you don't have any experience in; just how much force, exactly, did it take for a guy with a sledgehammer to break off a piece of the Berlin Wall? Odds are that you don't know, because you probably never had the chance to try.
Does all of this mean that randomized task resolutions should be completely dismissed? not at all. It's pretty much agreed upon that some systems simply aren't suited for some settings. My early attempts of trying to wrap Xiluh around D&D-- the very flavor it was trying to break away from-- were, to me, a practical demonstration of that fact. Sometimes randomized task resolution is good. It works wonderfully for many settings I've played, whether it's the WoD dicepools or Eberron's action points. All I'm saying is that randomization isn't some fundamental aspect of task resolution. All it does is present another way to have unknown variables.
Even more off-topic edit- Rue Morgue definitely is one of Poe's better works, but I don't think I'd say it's one of my favorites. Maybe my favorite Dupin story, though.
Randomness is probably the easiest thing to do well, though. It puts success for a given task into question, doesn't take forever to do, and isn't weirdly metagamey as many point based resolution systems can be (based on what costs points, how spending more points gets you better results, and especially how you get points back... imagine taking a nap to get points back so you can succeed in a diplo check you couldn't even try five minutes ago because you have no points because you spent them on some other diplo check.)
Moreover, random can do variable effort with "action points" that give you bonuses to a random roll or a re-roll. Or with things like risk dice where higher effort ups the difficulty but increases effectiveness (my combat system uses something like this). Card based systems that give you a random hand but let you pick when to use the good "rolls" and when to use the bad "rolls" are similar.
There are systems that do non-random well, I'm sure. From what I've heard Amber is pretty good for this. It just seems pretty severely limited.
Oh, and combat in a non-random system? Would be difficult to write in any way that felt real. Combat can be very random... one gunshot can graze a person or blow their head off, and however good or bad your aim is, there are plenty of random factors involved (or at least factors best modeled as random).
Yeah, dice don't so much represent a single matter of chance as they represent the combined effect of all the factors which affect you and which are either out of your control or just difficult to represent (stress, where your eyes are focussed, the temperature, uneven ground, wrong decisions, wind, sweaty hands, distractions, etc).
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowYeah, dice don't so much represent a single matter of chance as they represent the combined effect of all the factors which affect you and which are either out of your control or just difficult to represent (stress, where your eyes are focussed, the temperature, uneven ground, wrong decisions, wind, sweaty hands, distractions, etc).
Which can be taken into consideration with a non-random system.
Again, I'm not saying random is bad, just that it can be done away with in some-- not all, but some-- systems. Some settings are better suited for dice, some better suited for, say, cards, and some are better suited for non-random systems. It all depends on the context of the use of the system.
Some possible races for an Iron Heroes version of the Cadaverous Earth - not sure about any level adjustments:
Hagman
Base speed 30 ft., swim 40 ft.
Hagmen have the aquatic subtype.
+4 Hide in swampy vegetation.
+2 Listen, -2 Spot. Hagmen have poor eyesight, but they have adapted their other senses.
+2 on Fortitude saves versus poisons and diseases. Hagmen have natural resistances from dwelling the the swamps.
Amphibious: Hagmen can breathe both water and air. Hagmen can spend one day per point of Consitution without being immersed in water. After that they must make a Constitution check (10+1 per previous check) or take 1 point of subdual damage per day until they immerse themselves in water. Until they are immersed they cannot heal this subdual damage and are fatigued.
Hermaphrodism: Hagmen can change their sex at will. The process takes one week to complete. They can also choose to arrest their metamorphosis at any point, producing seven 'liminal' genders which have various significance in Hagman culture.
Scent: Hagmen have the Scent ability, which functions in water. This greatly assists them while hunting.
Hagmen still get a Background trait but do not receive an additional trait.
Favoured Class: Hunter
Ghul
+2 Constitution, -2 Charisma
Base speed 30 ft.
Darkvision 60 ft.
Grave-Spawn: Ghilan are immune to disease, aging, poison, and death effects.
Natural Weapons: Claws 1d3, bite 1d4.
Light Sensitivity: Ghilan are dazzled in direct sunlight.
Carnivorous: Ghilan can only digest meat.
Ghilan get one trait, but it cannot be a Background trait (amnesia).
Favoured Class: Any
Lilix
Males: +2 Strength, -2 Intelligence
Females: +2 Intelligence, -2 Dexterity
Base speed 30 ft.
Darkvision 30 ft.
+2 Bluff
Arachnoid: Lilix have six arms (and two legs). They have one primary hand and five off hands for combat purposes. They can, of course, take Multiweapon Fighting to ameliorate the normal penalty for fighting with additional weapons.
Liquid Diet: Lilix can only ingest liquid food.
Lilix still get a Background trait but do not receive an additional trait.
Favoured Class: Executioner
LA +1
Shade
In their natural forms, shades are Oozes with 5d10 HD that take 1 point of damage each round if exposed to sunlight. However, while possessing a host, Shades are represented by a template:
'Shade' is a template that can be applied to any humanoid, monstrous humanoid, animal, magical beast, or aberration (hereafter referred to as the 'host') of Huge size or smaller.
The host loses its class and all associated features (HD, skills, etc) but gains those of the shade (NOT its Ooze HD - its class HD, which don't apply when the shade is in Ooze form), which are only active while the shade is in possession of a host. The shade is only expelled from the host if the host is killed or if they are exposed to direct sunlight, in which case they must make a Constitution check (DC 10 +1 per round) every round or be expelled from their host. Shades can also voluntarily leave their host bodies.
Shades still get a Background trait but do not receive an additional trait.
Darkvision 60 ft.
Grave-Spawn: The host is immune to disease, aging, poison, and death effects.
Shades are immune to mind-influencing effects and critical hits: Shades have alien psychologies, and do not perceive pain as their hosts do. Chop off a host's head, and the shade can continue fighting with it.
Attributes: The host retains its physical attributes. Its mental attributes are replaced with those of the shade, all of which have a +2 bonus.
The host bodies of shades eventually begin to decompose unless measures are taken to avoid decay. This manifests as ability damage '" 1 point in each physical attribute a month.
Favoured Class: Any
LA +3
Mantid
Base Speed 30ft., Fly 10 ft. (poor)
Darkvision 30 ft.
+2 Craft (clockwork)
Natural Attacks: Mantids have two claw that function as natural attacks identical to scythes (1d6, can make trip attacks). One claw is primary, the other secondary (-5). They can wield normal weapons at the same time (they have four arms), though they suffer normal penalties for multiweapon fighting if they do so.
Carnivorous: Mantids can only digest meat.
Mantids still get a Background trait but do not receive an additional trait.
Favoured Class: Weapon Master
LA +1
Zerda
Small size
Base speed 30 ft.
Low Light Vision (4x)
+2 Dexterity, -2 Strength, -2 Intelligence
Natural Weapons: Bite 1d4 and two claws 1d3 each (one primary, one secondary).
Heat Endurance: +4 on Fortitude saves versus hot weather.
+4 Listen
+2 Move Silently, Spot, Survival
Zerda still get a Background trait but do not receive an additional trait.
Favoured Class: Harrier
Leechkin
+2 Strength, -4 Charisma - Leechkin are surprisingly powerful for such spindly creatures, but they lack essential drive or ambition.
Base speed 20 ft. Leechkin are generally sluggish.
Leechkin have the aquatic subtype.
+2 Hide in swampy vegetation.
+4 Swim.
Amphibious: Leechkin are fully amphibious and can breathe both water and air. They do not have a Swim speed, however,
Naturals Weapons: Two bites for 1d4 each (one primary, one secondary).
Blood Drain (Ex): A leechkin can suck blood from a living victim with its mouths by making a successful grapple check. If it pins the foe, it drains blood, dealing 1 point of Constitution drain each round the pin is maintained. On each such successful attack, the leechkin gains 1 temporary hit point.
Haematophage: Leechkin only consume blood. They follow the normal rules for thirst, but in addition to taking subdual damage they must make a Will save (DC 10 +1 per previous check) every hour or attack the nearest non-leechkin. They do not get fatigued from thirst; however they do gain a temporary +2 Strength and +2 Constitution until they feed, and their base speed doubles (40 ft.).
Leechkin can smell blood. This functions like the Scent ability, but only on creatures with warm blood (i.e. a leechkin could sense a living human but not a shade).
Leechkin do not earn traits - they are too apathetic.
Favoured Class: Berserker
The ability bonusses seem decent, while the lilix probably deserve some kind of level adjustment for having so many hands. And the shade simply by virtue of being "high level" oozes.
I like the small dietary "abilities" :D
But I'm pretty sure Iron Heroes doesn't operate with favored classes, so you don't actually need those. You can of course implement it as a house rule if you want to.
The Ghilan seem slightly weak (two weaknesses, one weak quality, one strong quality).
Hope that helped.
Thanks very much for the feedback!
Iron Heroes doesn't have favoured classes, but it also doesn't have non-human races.
I agree the Ghilan seem underpowered... I'll ponder them a bit more. Lilix probably do need a level adjustment. No idea what to give shades, but they do have a pretty significant weakness, and they don't retain their ooze HD when possessing a host... hmmmmmmmm.
EDIT: Added a bite attack for the Ghilan. They now have the fairly powerful Grave-Spawn abilities plus natural attacks, darkvision, and a Con bonus, which is pretty useful. They also now don't get a Background trait, but do get another trait.
I can give you a transcript of the small box on races in "Mastering Iron Heroes" (although you might have read it rlready since your races follow it fairly closely).
[ic=Nonhuman characters]Adding races such as dwarves, elves, and halflings to Iron Heroes is relatively easy. You can frely add LA +0 races, but more powerful creatures can introduce magical abilities that disrupt the game.
When creating such characters, replace their access to traits with the benefits of their racial advantages. In other words, nonhumans don't gain traits. As an optional rule you can allow half-humans, such as half-orcs and half-elves, to select one trait.
Under this optional rule, you can also let human characters select a bonus feat at 1st level, +4 skill ranks at 1st level, and +1 skill rank per each additional level in place of choosing two traits. These benefits represent humanity's flexibility when compared to elves, gnomes, and other folk[/ic]
Still tinkering. I gave the Mantids an LA of +1 (two powerful natural attacks and a sub-par but still very useful fly speed) and tweaked the Leechkin. Should Leechkin have an LA? They have a fairly powerful special attack but also a pretty serious drawback (bloodlust), and their Charisma penalty is steep.
Shades now decompose if their bodies aren't preserved (ability damage) to help offset their advantages, though of course the daylight thing is a pretty big drawback as well.
Looks pretty interesting. I have essentially no experience with the system so I can't comment on that too much.
Each race looks fairly unique, a little smilitarities between the Lilix and the Mantids however. Seems like natural weapons are very common.
Hmm, the leechkin also have a slow base speed (which is pretty nasty as a medium-sized creature), but that extra trait they get is a pretty powerful bonus as well (half a race essentially). Does the blood have to be fresh or of a specific kind? Can't quite recall... Assuming they just need live/recently dead prey, the hematophage disadvantage wouldn't really come into play if the character just has decent survival or there is frequent combat. The trait is probably a bit too much, really. Drop it and I could go for LA +0. The special attack is fairly "slow" to kill with.
hadn't noticed the fly speed of mantids, but that definitely deserves an LA.
The Zerda seem both balanced and very interesting to play rules-wise, and the Ghul looks done as well. Hagmen... I think they need another bonus. The swim speed is nice, but really, how often do games force the characters to swim? Also, the penalty is major. Just imagine going out into the wasteland with that. And the hermaphroditism is cool, but not really useful unless communicating with other hagmen.
Shades probably still need a higher LA. creature hit dice is not just hit points, it is also base attack bonus, feats, saves, skills... everything you'd get from a normal level except special abilities. Ooze is pretty weak physically (as I recall), but it also means you are immune to a lot of things, a bonus which is of course lessened by the fact that they spend their "lives" in hosts mostly.
I would consider raising the lilix modifier to at least +2 as well. Although more than that would probably make them comparatively weak physically, even if they have twice as many attacks as most others.
Dropped the trait from the leechkin. I'll think of another hagman bonus.
The thing about the shades is that they don't get any of the bonuses from their HD in human form, and they can't attack in their Ooze form. In order to really reflect in an LA that Ooze form, the human form of the Shade would be handicapped. How about this, though - an LA of +3 and they're also immune to mind-influencing effects and critical hits while inside a host?
Leechkin have to drain live prey. A leechkin in an adventuring party (which would be quite rare) would probably have to rely on the charity of its comrades if it didn't get to feed otherwise.
Ah okay, misunderstood how the shade works. I think they might be okay then, since they are only weak oozes outside a host, and are basically just ordinary characters while inside.
But your changes could work too I think.
Is there any kind of interaction between shade and host during possession? It doesn't really say what state the host will be in if the shade ever leaves him.
Also, is there a size limit to the possession?
As a last comment, are you sure hagmen should have hunter as their favored class? That's basically "tacticians" in Iron Heroes after all.
Shades can only possess dead bodies, so there's no issue with host conflicts. They're sort of the most genteel undead of CE. If you're familiar at all with Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse, he's pretty close to a shade (though I only discovered him recently).
I hadn't considered size limit, but I should probably add one...
It was either the Hunter or the Harrier for the Hagmen, and I just couldn't picture a vermiform crteature with the lower body of a giant eel (basically) in the role of the quick, swashbuckling Harrier. I like the terrain bonuses, and my description of the Hagmen does emphasize their hunting abilities. In D&D class terms their favoured class would have been Ranger.
I gave Hagmen the Scent ability. I looked it up, and apparently hagfish have a good sense of smell.
EDIT: Shades can now only possess a Huge or smaller creature. I made them immune to critical hits and mind-influencing effects. LA +3?
Yeah, LA +3 if they can possess huge creatures. Would be a very strange, yet hopefully entertaining, race to play :D
scent seems appropriate.
And Wormwood is awesome. I do imagine the shades as slightly less... wormlike, though ^^