The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
You can use the same speed stat for weapons and spells and actions, and the same duration stat as well, as long as you don't say things like "go first every round".  If a spell's duration is 10 seconds+ 2-16 seconds, it may last 21 seconds.  In a continuous system, that's 21 ticks.  In a round based system with 20 seconds per round, that means it lasts until the first tick of the second round (based on whatever tick it was cast in).  Just don't make stupid mistakes like abstracting things to 'One Round'.

The entire point of using a round-based initiative system is seriously to be able to abstract things to one round. If you have to worry about sub-ticks of a round then you've got a weird hybrid system and you seriously might as well save yourself the headache and use a continuous initiative system. More generally speaking, advocating eliminating various complex problems by making the modules more similar isn't actually an argument in favor of modularity, it's an argument in favor of a single official way of doing things.

Saying something is an argument in favor of something doesn't make it true.  The entire point of a round-based initiative system could be being able to have a re-starting point for rolling initiative in combat, that's probably why they are also called combat rounds.  And those sub-ticks you don't like were called segments in many games.  Like D&D.  So we really aren't introducing anything 'weird'.  Funny that EE and I were just talking about it a few pages ago.
And in terms of the cost/benefit of modularity, I've mentioned that there is a shrinkage of the possibilities if one is to gain the benefits of modularity already.  Because there are benefits and drawbacks to the idea.  That's a conversation,  just restating the 'cost' side of the equation in every paragraph is not an argument in favor of anything.  I completely agree that in some cases, making a game modular could have a cost in terms of options for the upgraded rules.  There are just advantages as well.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
If you make one of the overriding design principles that the advanced modules do bolt on as independently as possible, you *DO* shrink your possibility horizon, but with the benefit of a modular system.  You don't expect them to work, you design them to work.

Saying "design them to work" is a nice idea but it has no substance behind it. Getting down to substance, you say "designed to work" but then suggest a modular initiative system featuring a round-based initiative system that's just a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise. It's an obviously inferior module, because it tries way too hard to seamlessly integrate itself into a set of stats and game assumptions designed around a continuous initiative system, thus losing most of the simplicity or abstraction that round-based initiative is actually good for. Essentially, your example has proven my point.

Again, restating your opinion and then claiming that proves your point does little, save maybe the opposite.  Nor is stating an opinion any more substantial, since you were worrying about that.
IN actuality, as opposed to vacuous opinion, I was able to use the speeds by segment of spells in AD&D and the speed factors of the weapons found there to create my first version of the continuous system I am talking about.  Go pick up the AD&D rulebook, you'll find those stats there.  And somehow, me being able to able to use those numbers in a continuous system did not infringe on AD&D being a completely round-based system.  If you want to say AD&D is not round based, or is clunky or inferior, please, be my guest.  Opinions are, as above, matter of course and welcome.
I've done this exact thing before, taking a round-based system and bolted the continuous advanced module to it without making AD&D a clunky continuous initiative system in disguise. The 'substance' behind my design principles is actuality.  (and hey, it might not have been perfect, which is why I kept improving them, and used it later in my own systems.  But the origin of my continuous system was bolting it right onto AD&D using the casting time and weapon speeds)

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
It also allows a company or a licensee to write an adventure or setting piece, and refer back to official modular (official) rules.  It is better for tourney play, and in the world of online gaming, it better allows people from different areas to speak the same game language.

No, having one unified official rule set helps people speak the same game language

You're right in the comment above, but that was not the comparison in discussion.  (are those goalposts heavy?)
You left this out, let me help you.

Quote from: VreegWhich is one of the reasons I went with the Modular system vs a HackHelper

The comparison was One unified system+ hacking guide vs. base system+ modular bolt-ons.  Both ideals have a single base ruleset, so at that level there is a common language if everyone agrees, in tourney play, in writing an adventure or playing online, to go with the basic rules only.  No advantage in terms of a Lingua Franca for basic rules.
The advantage of the modular part in this venue is that a person running a game can post that they are using X upgrade rules from the Social Advanced module in the game, and everyone can refer to the same rules.  A system allowing for the creation of houserules in one basement of one town will cause more confusion vs published optional rules that are available to every one.

Now, the Hacking Guide is more creative and has different advantages, but the marketing/designer side of me does not see these as mutually exclusive.  In fact, the Hacking Guide could explain the design process of how the base rules were gotten to and how the bolt-ons are created.  One does not preclude the other.  Ooops.  Steerpike said it already.

Quote from: SteepikePersonally I'd like to see both - a bunch of pre-fab, playtested variants where you combine various individual variant rules (so, like, the "Old School" mod of 5E would have XP awarded for gold, d6+bonuses Initiative, Death at 0, and random attribute generation, for example) and suggestions for house-ruling and other DIY stuff, with the former providing models or examples so that enterprising DMs can see what a heavily customized version of the game might look like.

yeah, this is a different way to say the exact same thing.

Later, gang.  

no, no...I constantly add prep.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/83130988/3rd%20level%20attic%20area%20of%20Kravent%20Hall
things like that take a while, and the deep level of detail in terms of the mysteries and histories take a lot of time.

I play 13-20 hours a month, including online, but rarely over 17.  I prep and work on game about 15-25 hours a week...I don't sleep a lot, thank god. 

I find my style of game needs a lot of prep.  I could fake it based on old stuff, but having a very clear idea and especially with the online, heavy detail game, makes the games the type that make a campaign worth coming back to.

Quote from: Sparkletwist"So yeah. I posit this is not a thing you can simply independently plug in and expect everything else to just work."

Posit away.
Maybe you have trouble seeing how it can be done, and that's ok.  
Good thing no one just expects it to work.

In the initiative example you use, you just have to use the same language and you can use the same stat.  You can use the same speed stat for weapons and spells and actions, and the same duration stat as well, as long as you don't say things like "go first every round".  If a spell's duration is 10 seconds+ 2-16 seconds, it may last 21 seconds.  In a continuous system, that's 21 ticks.  In a round based system with 20 seconds per round, that means it lasts until the first tick of the second round (based on whatever tick it was cast in).  Just don't make stupid mistakes like abstracting things to 'One Round'.  Extra actions are simple, you just need to use the same terminology in describing the time period they happen in.
There is no reason you would need multiple stat sets. 
(surprise, I bolted continuous init onto AD&D at one point, back in the early 80s...not a new concept here).  

If you make one of the overriding design principles that the advanced modules do bolt on as independently as possible, you *DO* shrink your possibility horizon, but with the benefit of a modular system.  You don't expect them to work, you design them to work.  I do product design and management for a living, frankly, though the job has grown a lot.  But I won't waste your time or anyone else when you've made up your mind. You are correct about my lack of RPG publishing credentials and you are correct that the 30 years of Guildschool (and the other games and gaming) have been done for people playing the game, under 200 people in toto have played, though a lot more have gone over it.  Obviously, since you bring experience up as a reason I am wrong and you know better, you've published an RPG and have played longer and created systems that have been played by more people than I.  I have, however, in other fields brought products to market and been part of design and marketing plans and implementations for decades, though, so perhaps my poor experience could at least be considered.

Which is one of the reasons I went with the Modular system vs a HackHelper.  I look at this in terms of longevity in today's RPG world.  In terms of regaining market share, don't just write one set of rules, people are going to create houserules one way or another, might as well create sanctioned versions that sell more books and players in 2 different sides of the planet can both read and agree to use or not.  
It also allows a company or a licensee to write an adventure or setting piece, and refer back to official modular (official) rules.  It is better for tourney play, and in the world of online gaming, it better allows people from different areas to speak the same game language.

It can work; it would be an extremely smart business move, marketing move, and great for gamers.  It would have to be done carefully, and to your point, it might be difficult to do and could be screwed up.  
 

What kind of play in the new campaign?  What kind of plotlines?

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Don't forget about the Group Initiative that is re-rolled each turn! That  system was used a lot when I played 2E.

Also, in previous editions, people who rolled the same initiative went simultaneously, unlike 3.5/4E where everyone has a unique place with ties being rolled off.

Part of me wants to see how a 3.x/PF game would play where you roll a 1d10+mod for initiative, initiative is rolled every turn, you can "take 5" rather than roll and people with the same initiative act at the same time. Seems like it would lead to a more dynamic encounter to me.

Pretty much what I use in my simple d20 game (accis).
I use init rounds in that game, d10+ speed of weap or d6+ init of spell, and then minus Coordination adjustment.  Go in order. 

6 years old. 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=849496638412645&set=pb.100000569516537.-2207520000.1405774508.&type=3&theater
and he gets it.
Nom, make you feel old yet?

No, one can easily use the same input numbers and just have different formula to go with them.
It's pretty easy.  Like initiative.  Round-based or continuous can use the same basic stat, they just have different rulesets that use the same stat.  I have used the same weapon list for decades, but it is robust enough to be able to work with dozens of advanced permutations. 
I had STN and CND as major stats always.  That's Strength Needed and Coordination needed for a weapon.  They were part since the beginning, back in 83.  in the first advance, for every 4 points of ST or CD above or below them, there was a bonus to hit or speed. 
Please note.  No more stats needed in the beginning.  Just derived stats in the advanced version.
ANd this went on and on with one and 2 handed rules, ready vs unready, Initiative bonus skill rules...
All without every needing more than one set of stats.

No, No, No.
Again.
I have basic and advanced versions of Guildschool.  
You DO NOT need basic and advanced versions of every weapon or every skill.  
Advanced combat options can include more types of combat schools, they could add on more types of weapons,  There can be optional initiative rules, there can be optional HP rules and damage rules and taking damage rules, there can be optional  rules of how armor reduces magical damage, Protection rules, advanced shield use (as Shields are way undervalued in D&D), martial combat, non-lethal variants, fighting vs large or small, fighting as a unit rules, etc, etc, etc...without 2 sets of stats.

I said this before,you made the same argument, then Steerpike, then Kindling...it is ok if you don't want them, but there are huge advantages to them.  

Full session 26 last night, with INtermezzo, we are well over 30 sessions so far. 
AS with most of the ultra-involved RP game, time crawls a bit.  But this is due to the level of detail involved.  PCs know the setting is rich in detail, they do a lot of extra homework...and they are right, as I have never, ever had this level of detail involved in any game, but due to the interweaving of history, mystery, and active undead...there is a lot documented.
Here is a loo at the Roll20 page for the Attic in Kravent Hall where the young students have been moved to for their own protection.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/83130988/3rd%20level%20attic%20area%20of%20Kravent%20Hall

On the ipad, so minimal cut and paste.  SItting outside with the wife ater dinner with wine, the boy (now six) in the yard, with Sinatra playing.
Sue me.
SO, we agree on the Smaug thing.  Awesome.
I also have more hope for this version of D&D than any in a long time, whether I play it or not.  Another good thing,  And I believe it will bring more people to the hobby...even better.

AC, HP, and protection was always a big issue with myself and D&D.  The simplicity was TOO simple and abstract.  Just adding handfuls of HP and letting a guy or dragon be hit 10-20 times...and being basically unkillable by a sword or axe blow...we called it the Warhorse problem (one of our three).  So we changed the probability curve and added what equates to a higher % of a critical...it even models physics a bit, as larger creatures and weapons have a different damage curve.  So, round about, I agree with Steerpike here.  I don't mind when abilities grow slowly, but don't just use more HP to create the feel of a tougher creature/person.

a) D&D is always a poor match with Tolkien.  Saying you can't do Tolkien with D&D is like like using Bordeaux to measure the quality of McDonalds.

b) The number of men equivalent is not a suggestion or idea.  It is How Chainmail and 0D&D worked.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is how the game was created.  It;s right there, word for word, in the Fantasy Supplement for Chainmail.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but in terms of an actual feel, it is important information.

c) Your analysis of Bard and the Dragon is also incomplete.
Smaug was not any Red Dragon.  He was accounted in the LotR Appendices as being the greatest dragon of the time.  Greatest  Not some level 13 equiv.  Perhaps a regular dragon would have found the townsfolk much harder.
Also, Bard does not kill the dragon merely with his innate skill.  He has something else (other than a gigantic mad-on for thing that killed his grand-sire), a certain black Arrow that shares an uncanny similarity to Beleg's arrow Dailir.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bard_the_Bowman
In D&D terms, I think we'd call this an arrow of Dragon Slaying.  A historical magic item, especially in a story like this, passed on from father to son, made by Thror...I think might be included as a factor in your equation, if one could equate D&D to tolkien.  Bard has a major item that may make up a lot of the difference.

in the original game, a hero (4th level) was the equal of 4 1st level fighters, a super hero (8th level) was worth 8 normal people.
That's extreme OSR.

Frankly, I left D&D because of the scaling back in AD&D.  It was too much, too fast, and much of it was HP bloat, but still, spell powers growth was also a little much.  I purposely went the other way, so that my games could go on for years and years with small, steady increases in ability without losing mortality.

And all the games afterwards were worse.  We used to make fun of games where PCs became like gods, as Monty Haul childrens games.  You'd read in the Dragon or others where Gary's and Rob's games would take years to get to high levels like 9 or 10, and where it didn't matter how many sessions it took, you needed 'X' experience to gain a level.   
Then, as time went on, the games went the direction of expectation, of 1-20 then godhood.   

But it is always better to have different types of games to be covered by the rules.  I'd rather they had gritty versions that allow for long, mortal games, as well as games for those that want to transcend mortality and fight powerful dragons and gods.

we are on tonight...roll20.net, celtricia. 

I read a lot of history, as my main inspiration.  I like my mind to warp what is real and go from there.  Archeology is a big help.

And music.  So much of my games and plots are derived from music.  My whole Collegium Arcana online game (by far the most inventive thing I've done) came from a song, "Dead Son Rising'.