The Campaign Builder's Guild

From what I can see, you have wanted a class-less system entirely based on the major and minor skills. In that post, I call for a class system, with major and minor skills amplifying the class abilities and leveling the character up.

Also, we need to decide on some sort of Attribute-like thing.

i vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

Quote from: Atlantisi vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

I'm guessing Intellect = Intelligence, Awareness = Wisdom and the Health = constitution?

health=constitution and hit points
if Health=constitution, i would probably call it toughness

I say we have just Strength, Agility, and Intellect. Strength governs physical strength and health matters, Agility governs reflexes, dodging, etc., and Intellect governs spellcasting, knowledge, etc.

maybe change strength to toughness and have sub-abilities or would that be too confusing for people that play this and us

Quote from: Atlantisi vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

Otherwise known as strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma with different names and order?


I was initially enamored with a use-based setup too. The problem with that is that it works well in computer games where the tracking goes on behind the scenes, but it breaks down when applied to a tabletop game. It's a lot of extra space and bookkeeping when you've got to mark every time you've used each skill. It sounds like you're pulling this system straight from the Elderscrolls games. I've tried to convert that system to pen and paper, and believe me when I say it's messy as all heck.

I'm curious as to why you want to axe a simple skill points per level system, besides the standard 'I don't want characters skilled in stuff they've never used' knee-jerk response. It might not be the most realistic thing ever, but it's quick and easy and it works.

I do agree, however, that class and cross class skills have to go. I suggest replacing that with a list of 'class focuses.' Each class has a list of 15-20 potential focuses, and the character gets to choose ten when taking the first level of the class. You can add 1/2 your class level to the roll for those skills, or we could go for a straight bonus. These ten also have the normal class skill rank caps, while the others use cross class, but ditching the 1/2 point purchase concept, as that's simply moronic.

By the sound of the discussion (which has essentially been Sir Vorpal and Atlantis bouncing back and forth), it wounds like you want to rebuild d20. If not, we should probably be asking whether we want skills at all. Forget that, we should be figuring out basic dice mechanics.

Well, the word strength involves physical toughness, and I'm not sure how many people can get confused by Strength controlling physical ability and health.

yeah, when i think about it, that elder crolls system would be hard to use. Class focuses you say? i agree. First, we should work on attributes though. then we should think about class focuses, etc.

sO WE'RE KEEPING THE NORMAL D20, ROLL AGAINST A dc IDEA?

wHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SIX ABILITY SCORES AND KEEPING THEM AS IS? tHEY ARE (RELATIVELY) BALANCED, AND THAT WILL REQUIRE MINIMAL TWEAKING.

(Bloody... Ignore the all caps, that's what I get for playing Morrowind... Stupid caps lock as a controlling key...)

nothing is wrong with attributes but with all the discussion we have we dont know if we are keeping the DnD ones or using three or renaming a bunch. lets use a d12 instead of a d20. Lets be different.

Omg, could you please WAIT for me waking up before making so many posts in a thread that highly interests me? :-| :P

Anyways...

1) For a class-less, skill-based, level-controlled variant, check out my Worldgate Campaign Setting. The mechanics are a heavily modified fork of the d20 system, with everything broken down into skills. A character gets to select a few skills he's really good at, several skills he's just good at, the rest is standard (these categories determine max ranks). Each level a character gains a more or less fixed amount of skill points to distribute among his skills.

2) Regarding classes, I must say I am highly intrigued by the system used in the Everquest II d20 game. Even with the policy from SSS sucking donkey balls (dropping the game completely after the player's guide came out, leaving the community hanging in mid-air without a playable system :-/ ), the class system was very good imho.

Basically, you had a "archetype -> class -> advanced class" system. For example, if you wanted to make an unarmed specialist you would go fighter (general warrior class) -> brawler (general unarmed combat class) and then either -> monk (unarmed specialist with self-healing and some battlefield control options like stun etc) or -> bruiser (unarmed specialist for all out damage).

Also, there were no fixed class abilities, but instead each class gained a large number of "talents". Thus (and I've tried it out ;) ) you can at first level make a fighter that is
* a classical sword & board type tank
* an unarmed & unarmored combatant
* an agile swashbuckler type
and perfectly playable with interesting combat options.

3) I've also made a suggestion for a "increase skills by use" based system in another thread (can't remember which one right now :-| ). While it didn't deal with the "learn from errors" thing (imho that one is impossible to implement without leaving some really big loopholes), it worked off the following idea:
* you select skill categories similar to those I mentioned under 1), representing your character's talents and knacks for things (think TES "major skills")
* whenever you succeed on a skill check by 5 or more you check a box next to the skill
* if you have 5/10/20 (major skills, average skills, minor skills) boxes checked, you clear all boxes and make an "advancement roll"
* on the advancement roll, you make a d20 roll and if you get a result higher than your current number of ranks in that skill you gain one rank, otherwise not

My idea behind this was to make advancement slow, but still noticable. The first levels it would be quite easy to advance in your skills, primarily because magic is not yet able to do anything (*cought*[limited] wish*cough*) and most characters have to rely on their mundane skills, and because the advancement roll will succeed on most occasions. However, later on opportunities to use skills become rarer (why climb when you have boots of flying, etc) and the advancement roll will fail more often.

Anyways, there were some problems with it pointed out in the other thread, so this may not be a perfectly valid idea, and definitively needs some more brainstorming about it.

4) As for the die types/ability names/number of skills/etc, well, to me it doesn't matter. We could make a d20 spin off (it is after all a successful and relative solid game engine), or use another system. However, I'm not too keen on renaming everything and its mother just to be different for sake of being different. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielOmg, could you please WAIT for me waking up before making so many posts in a thread that highly interests me? :-| :P

NEVAH! We shall always post when you are asleep! It is part of our cunning plan!

*looks at what he just typed* Perhaps I need some sleep...

Quote from: Ra-TielAnyways...

1) For a class-less, skill-based, level-controlled variant, check out my Worldgate Campaign Setting. The mechanics are a heavily modified fork of the d20 system, with everything broken down into skills. A character gets to select a few skills he's really good at, several skills he's just good at, the rest is standard (these categories determine max ranks). Each level a character gains a more or less fixed amount of skill points to distribute among his skills.

So we've pretty much cemented that we will be using some sort of skill specialization. This is good.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel2) Regarding classes, I must say I am highly intrigued by the system used in the Everquest II d20 game. Even with the policy from SSS sucking donkey balls (dropping the game completely after the player's guide came out, leaving the community hanging in mid-air without a playable system :-/ ), the class system was very good imho.

Basically, you had a "archetype -> class -> advanced class" system. For example, if you wanted to make an unarmed specialist you would go fighter (general warrior class) -> brawler (general unarmed combat class) and then either -> monk (unarmed specialist with self-healing and some battlefield control options like stun etc) or -> bruiser (unarmed specialist for all out damage).

Also, there were no fixed class abilities, but instead each class gained a large number of "talents". Thus (and I've tried it out ;) ) you can at first level make a fighter that is
* a classical sword & board type tank
* an unarmed & unarmored combatant
* an agile swashbuckler type
and perfectly playable with interesting combat options.

So, you take that as a single package, or wait for each one as you gain in levels? If the former, I like the idea, but I think there has to be an easier way to do it. If the latter, all that does is extend the time it takes for a concept to become 'complete,' which is not a good thing.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel3) I've also made a suggestion for a "increase skills by use" based system in another thread (can't remember which one right now :-| ). While it didn't deal with the "learn from errors" thing (imho that one is impossible to implement without leaving some really big loopholes), it worked off the following idea:
* you select skill categories similar to those I mentioned under 1), representing your character's talents and knacks for things (think TES "major skills")
* whenever you succeed on a skill check by 5 or more you check a box next to the skill
* if you have 5/10/20 (major skills, average skills, minor skills) boxes checked, you clear all boxes and make an "advancement roll"
* on the advancement roll, you make a d20 roll and if you get a result higher than your current number of ranks in that skill you gain one rank, otherwise not

My idea behind this was to make advancement slow, but still noticable. The first levels it would be quite easy to advance in your skills, primarily because magic is not yet able to do anything (*cought*[limited] wish*cough*) and most characters have to rely on their mundane skills, and because the advancement roll will succeed on most occasions.

However, later on opportunities to use skills become rarer (why climb when you have boots of flying, etc) and the advancement roll will fail more often.

The problem I've always seen with systems like this is the sheer amount of extra paperwork it takes, to me, outweighs the benefits it would bring to the table. The only one I would go with is a simple checkbox to record whether or not he used the skill at all during the level, and allow only those to be raised at levelup, and even that seems a bit superfluous.

Quote from: Stargate525NEVAH! We shall always post when you are asleep! It is part of our cunning plan!

*looks at what he just typed* Perhaps I need some sleep...

Definitively! :P

Quote from: Stargate525So we've pretty much cemented that we will be using some sort of skill specialization. This is good.

Well, I'd like to hear what others think about this idea. It just seems reasonable to me to make decisions as to what skills the character is really good at using. It's the same in real life; even given the same manual dexterity or intellectual abilities, some people are just better in certain areas than others - even with the exactly same kind of training and experience. In my eyes it's more reasonable to build a system off of these "knacks", than off some abstract "class skills" or something.

Quote from: Stargate525So, you take that as a single package, or wait for each one as you gain in levels? If the former, I like the idea, but I think there has to be an easier way to do it. If the latter, all that does is extend the time it takes for a concept to become 'complete,' which is not a good thing.

The EQII d20 system is still level-centric, so it's the latter one. However, it's not as bad as it seems, because you can easily work on most concepts with the "weak" basic talents the archetypes and classes offer. Also, I do think in that case it's a good thing, as the talents of the advanced classes are quite strong and would be just inappropriate for lower levels.

Quote from: Stargate525The problem I've always seen with systems like this is the sheer amount of extra paperwork it takes, to me, outweighs the benefits it would bring to the table. The only one I would go with is a simple checkbox to record whether or not he used the skill at all during the level, and allow only those to be raised at levelup, and even that seems a bit superfluous.

It's not much paperwork at all. All it would need was a few boxes next to each skill (or even a seperate "advancement sheet") and that's all. And it wouldn't be more paperwork than distributing skill points at level up, imho.

Another "benefit" would be that one could also tie in ability increases into that system, just like with TES. Perhaps for every 5 times a skill increases, the associated key ability also increases, or something similar. Or one could remove the "advancement roll" from the system, making skill increases exclusively dependent on the number of uses and take out the "luck" factor.