The Campaign Builder's Guild

Well, my vote would be for removing stats entirely and going with a system of buying abilities directly, and optional one-time-only Traits that you can buy at startup to boost specific abilities.

The reason is that by removing all the mental and personality traits, you've removed all the stats that affect the stealth, "roleplaying", and magic/mystic elements of the game. Keeping only the physical stats seems to put combat in a privileged position.

By including some Traits (mental, physical, and personality), players who want statistical bonuses on their skills and abilities can buy them. Those that don't need them, spend their points elsewhere. No need to dump Charisma or play a buffoon just to save points for your key abilities. But combat, stealth, knowledge, skills, magic, all can benefit from appropriate Traits.

But either way, I don't think it is fatal to the system to have only physical traits. Just kind of weird - Gross Dex helps everyone dodge in combat but does nothing at all for the Acrobat's skills?

As far as points go: I think calling them XP is just fine, it is well understood. I'd think you could scale them down by 50 or 100 - that way lots of basic things cost 5 or 10 points, so there's room for good variation without making the numbers seem oddly high. Seems that as you move up the tech tree, or increase in ranks, costs might go up a little.

Quote from: snakefingWell, my vote would be for removing stats entirely and going with a system of buying abilities directly, and optional one-time-only Traits that you can buy at startup to boost specific abilities.

The reason is that by removing all the mental and personality traits, you've removed all the stats that affect the stealth, "roleplaying", and magic/mystic elements of the game. Keeping only the physical stats seems to put combat in a privileged position.

By including some Traits (mental, physical, and personality), players who want statistical bonuses on their skills and abilities can buy them. Those that don't need them, spend their points elsewhere. No need to dump Charisma or play a buffoon just to save points for your key abilities. But combat, stealth, knowledge, skills, magic, all can benefit from appropriate Traits.

But either way, I don't think it is fatal to the system to have only physical traits. Just kind of weird - Gross Dex helps everyone dodge in combat but does nothing at all for the Acrobat's skills?

As far as points go: I think calling them XP is just fine, it is well understood. I'd think you could scale them down by 50 or 100 - that way lots of basic things cost 5 or 10 points, so there's room for good variation without making the numbers seem oddly high. Seems that as you move up the tech tree, or increase in ranks, costs might go up a little.

Keep stats. (abilities)
Roleplay traits (no need for numerics if you can *actually* bluff... it relies on DM discretion, but why the hell not?).
Buy skills.
As for knowledge and stuff... just buyable "lore"... supplemented by stuff you can only find out in-game.
The xp scale I have yet to decide on.
And on the gross/manual dex divide, "gross" is acrobatics, dodging, etc... "manual" is arts, crafts, lockpicking, escaping, archery...
"grossdex" should be called agility and "mandex" should just be dexterity, IMHO.

Grar, this thread is going to collapse soon...  We need goal, schedules, discussions, grarg!  Who wants to be among the voters?

I'm a voter.
I prefer pre-vote discussion first.
We aren't just going to bang-out an RPG in a matter of weeks... the prototype alone probably won't be done until January (if that) after that, we need several test-models (sci-fi sys, fantasy sys, mixed sys, anime sys, historical sys)... then at least a year playtesting and modifying each.
In the meantime, let's take what we've got so far and move it to a new thread.
Thus far we are a classless leveless point buy.
We have action point turns.
We have... three or four tentative abilities lists (We're all anti-mental-stat).
What else do we have?

An agreement by silent consensus to allow different magic systems to allow be compatible with the system and an idea to hard-wire legacy weapons into the rules for advancement.

Currently the issue of a luck/spirit stat is still up int he air.  I for one, would like to be clear of our position ont hat one before  we move to a new thread.  Also, we should decide on proper names for the abilities we have decided on already.  Sound good?  I'd like to do a vote ont eh spirit/luck issue, or at least brainstorm collectively to see how many uses we can come up with for this stat.  If we don't create enough for it to be necessary,w e shall forget it and move on.  Sound good everybody?

I see that Crit has agreed to be the project manager for this. :P

Well, I can't really make mechanics, or do anything else of value...

Speaking of that, does that bother anyone?  I have no problem with taking that position...  At least, as long as everything is still pretty informal. :P

Seriously, does anyone mind?

Hell, someone's got to do it.

I pmed both Eldo and Ish about a subforum.  Hopefully Ish will respond soon.

QuoteAn agreement by silent consensus to allow different magic systems to allow be compatible with the system and an idea to hard-wire legacy weapons into the rules for advancement.

Well, we are going to present different magic systems by Sunday and compare the detailed, worked out systems and vote then.  Any or all might not be able to be made compatible.  That is why we have a cooling off period on the magic discussion.

As for legacy weapons, that is not a priority until the basics are nailed down.

Luck name sounds cooler. Also, people are going to be more familiar with what luck means than with what "spirit" means. As for the silent concensus... okay. The best names (IMHO) for the existing abilities are Dexterity, Agility, Toughness, and Strength.

Quote from: snakefingHell, someone's got to do it.

I think it is really too early to try to formalize anything like that, or put anyone in any position of control.

Not control... leadership.
People work for a controller.
A leader works for people.

Cool cool, thanks for clarifying CYMRO, that's why it's still a discussion. I'm honestly too tired to put together a list of what we've decided on and are working on right now, so can someone else do it?

I'm going to sleep for the night...

EDIT: I don't need to be leader, controller, etc. or anythign right now.  Let's proceed with mixed discussion for a while more.

Quote from: beejazzNot control... leadership.
People work for a controller.
A leader works for people.

Art cannot be led...

1) RPG =/= art, but don't get me started.
2) Tell that to Rodin.
3) Just sayin'.