The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Ra-TielThen you have apparently a substantially different understanding of rhetoric than I do. I learned that in debates you try to keep your points as factual as possible, without resorting to swearing or other comments that attack the other participant's point without facts and arguments. Also, I learned to precisely quote and refer the points I'm talking about. Please don't take this as an ad hominem, but I've made similar observations in other forums as well, which sort of frustrates me.

Yeah, you do. Our teams are agressive, and since we run Parlimentary debate, logic and the lack thereof is usually the only gronds for argument. Calling someone's position and train of logic a load of ...., and putting forth your own is a common tactic.

We draw the line at attacking the other person, and not their point. I don't think I've done that, and if I have, I apologize.

Quote from: Ra-TielI think that our positions are just too different to come to a general agreement in this regard. Also, I've been noticing that seemingly most of the ideas and suggestions are made by me. I really don't want to hog the spotlight here, and will step back from posting in here to give others the opportunity to present their own ideas. After all, this thread is about the "campaign builder's system" and not "Ra-Tiel's system".

Thing is, if you step back, then we've got 'Stargate's system,' as the majority of this thread is you and I sparring over facets of this system.

Ra-Tiel, your not hogging the spotlight, you are one of the few that is actually keeping this thread alive by posting idea after idea, to be shot down and usually replaced by something stargate thought up. :)

I have this crazy and simple idea for the CBG system. We don't have a standard. No, seriously. No standard system.
Two reasones:
1)Everybody will have different opinions on how dice mechanics should reflect a magical teapot fight.
2) The difference between an exclusively roleplaying system for ponies prancing in a meadow will be unsuitable to adaptation with a wargaming style of play with ogres and magical ponies beating on each other. It is unsuitable for fighters to have anything nice in 3e.

My suggestion is to not worry about one unifying system because either no-one will agree apon one due to differing attitudes and opinions, as can be explained with the HP/injury mechanics of the most recent argument. But different systems do work differently and represent different things differently.
d20 works OK for D&D, d6 works great for Warhammer, SAME functions very well for Pokemon on paper, and you don't want any rules for Barbie Doll.

This is my new suggestion: Don't make a system. Instead, design the game without any numbers then work from their.
It's not an original idea of mine, but I recognize the intelligence behind the concept. Here's my source model for game design:
http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=1094

Quote from: Stargate525[...]I don't think I've done that, and if I have, I apologize.

Oh no, you haven't. It was just irritating and confusing me. As said, I'm used to adhere to the "classical" definition of "discussion", presenting and countering arguments with facts, proves, and valid points. But each to his own. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Thing is, if you step back, then we've got 'Stargate's system,' as the majority of this thread is you and I sparring over facets of this system.

Not necessarily. There are some other members who could join in, like Xeviat, or Epic Meepo, or SH. After all, you would actually need to get some more people involved if you truely want to stick to your thread's title. :P Also, I'm stuck in a softwareproject at university right now and wouldn't have much time actively participating in the thread anyways. However, there is something I already learned. The project is about programming a raytracer in a small team. The organisation and design process was actually taking up the first third of the time we are allowed for the whole thing.

What I'm trying to say is that before you try to implement a community project like this you should probably organize it in a certain way. A roleplaying game system has so many aspects, putting all in a single thread is (as we've seen it happen) most likely to end in discussions and arguments about minor points without making a noticable progress on the whole thing. Therefore, I'd suggest to fragment the system into smaller parts, who in turn could be discussed, organized, designed, and presented by other members, which would allow you to get more of the guild involved.

Some suggestions and starting ideas:
* Attributes (number and name of attributes, attribute range, distribution, creation, interaction with and connection to the rest of the system)
* Skills (skill points or derived from attributes, max ranks, reroll mechanics, etc)
* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)
* Special abilities (linear or exponential scaling, scope and range of abilities, degree of magic usage, etc)
* Magic/spellcasting (used or necessary at all, power level, levelbased like DnD or more-or-less freeform like WoD Mage or Ars Magica, etc)

Not wanting to read eight pages of stuff, I'm coming in at a disadvantage.

First thing I want to say is that this has happened before. The CBG wanted to design its own system and it got gridlocked over a couple things. Eventually it was abandoned. I'd like it if this didn't happen again.

As for the way a fight progresses, it is important to track penalties, lethality, and unconsciousness and it is damn near impossible to ever be realistic.

I kind of like the SAGA approach where massive damage inflicts a penalty but hit points work the same otherwise. I would suggest that getting five or more steps on the condition track kills you and losing all your hp only knocks you out. A thought.

Ahem!



I see the plan of splitting this endeavor into various subgroups and continuing the work there worked exceptionally well. :P

Now, did this just die a quick death after I announced my - temporary - retreat, or did anyone put some more thought into it? ;)

QuoteNow, did this just die a quick death after I announced my - temporary - retreat, or did anyone put some more thought into it?

Its certainly seems that way. And in the spirit of resurrecting this thread, what subgroups were you thinking of splitting this up into?

Quote from: ~Kalin~Its certainly seems that way. And in the spirit of resurrecting this thread, what subgroups were you thinking of splitting this up into?

I'm just going to be a lazy ass and quote my above post, ok? ;) :P

Quote from: Ra-Tiel[...]Some suggestions and starting ideas:
* Attributes (number and name of attributes, attribute range, distribution, creation, interaction with and connection to the rest of the system)
* Skills (skill points or derived from attributes, max ranks, reroll mechanics, etc)
* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)
* Special abilities (linear or exponential scaling, scope and range of abilities, degree of magic usage, etc)
* Magic/spellcasting (used or necessary at all, power level, levelbased like DnD or more-or-less freeform like WoD Mage or Ars Magica, etc)

Bumping the thread aside I just now had an idea on the latest "hot potatoe" in this thread, regarding possible mechanics for damage/health. When this thread was still [sort of] alive, SG525 and I were having a very "heated" ( ;) ) discussion about the pros and cons of various combat mechanics. He wanted an easy system where characters would not die instantly to make things more managable at the table, while I was proposing a lethal and realistic system to encourage "realistic" roleplaying and make players think about their characters' actions.

Obviously, we did not come to a conclusion.

So, now I was having the idea of sort of combining both systems. My original suggestion included no hit points, no wound tracks, no status bar whatsoever and only count the number and severity of each wound the character suffered. While being utterly realistic (again, can you tell how many knife wounds you can take to the stomache before dying? ;) ) it was sort of abstract (well, if being more abstract than HP was possible :P ) and sort of complicated until you understood how it worked. The alternative, however, was using some "normal" means to track how much punishment a character could take, with the consequence of wounds and injuries being absolutely predictable ("I can take three more of those before I go down", etc).

Ok, without much further comments, my latest idea on the topic:
[spoiler=Table]
[----Minor----]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -1
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[----Light----]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -2
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Moderate--]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -3
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Serious---]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -4
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Critical--]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -5
[/spoiler]
The basic idea is like this. There are 5 degrees of wounds: minor, light, moderate, serious, and critical. Whenever a character suffers a wound of a given degree, one checkbox of the appropriate category is "marked off". For each box that is marked off, the character suffers a cumulative penalty to all checks dependent on the wound severity. So far, it looks like a normal damage track, doesn't it? However, wounds are NOT cumulative. A character being hit with 13 moderate wounds does not suddenly have a serious wound. Only attacks of a given severity are able to inflict wounds of a certain severity. This prevents the sort of silly situation of a character dying from a broken nose, a stab to the leg, and a gun shot to the arm when actually no lethal wound was inflicted at all.

I already hear SG525 complaining that this would make really tough characters invincible to weaker attacks. Not really. Each successful attack that gets through a character's defense and connects (and is not completely absorbed by armor or other mundane or magical protections) inflicts at least a minor wound. This means, that the character may not actually suffer life threatening injuries, but accumulates scratches and minor cuts all over. The wound penalty (-6 at most in case of only minor wounds) is applied to all checks, including those to defend oneself as well as the "damage resistance checks" (however they may look like ;) ). This means, that with every, no matter how minor, injury the chance for a lethal wound increases. And at one point the character starts taking light and moderate wounds, and then the battle's basically already over for him.

Anyways, a character can take basically an unlimited number of wounds of any degree, represented by the huge number of boxes on each wound degree. However, sooner or later the wound penalties will sum up to such a huge number that any attack will result in a critical wound no matter how the die falls. I'm not yet sure how to handle "critical" hits and (if at all possible) "insta-gibs" in this system, so this as well as the answer to the question "when does a character die?" is still a big blank spot.

However, I think that this idea can serve as a good starting point for further discussion and number crunching. :P :D

So, I'm confused on this: If one suffers 8 minor wounds, would they get a -2? And what if they've suffered 4 minor wounds? What constitutes a minor, light, moderate, serious or critical wound?

Quote from: Sir VorpalSo, I'm confused on this: If one suffers 8 minor wounds, would they get a -2? And what if they've suffered 4 minor wounds?

No. The wound penalty listed is per wound, and cumulative. A character suffering from 8 minor wounds has a -8 penalty. A character suffering from 5 minor, 4 light, 3 moderate, 2 serious, and 1 critical wound has a penalty of 5*1 + 4*2 + 3*3 + 2*4 + 1*5 = 5 + 8 + 9 + 8 + 5 = 35. Considering how many actual wounds he has (eg, 5 scratches and shallow cuts, 4 deep cuts, 3 broken bones, a twice punctured rib cage, and 1 severed main artery), I think a penalty in that dimension is sort of appropriate.

Quote from: Sir VorpalWhat constitutes a minor, light, moderate, serious or critical wound?

That's dependent on the system and weapon mechanic used. I kept this thing abstract on intend, as we are currently unable to tell how weapons should work in the CBS. Do they keep their normal "damage die"? Or do they rather have a "damage bonus" like M&M or nWoD? Something completely different?

I could for example imagine that each weapon only doesn't have a numerical expression of damage, but rather only a wound degree...
[spoiler=Table]
[table=Weapon wound degrees]
[tr][th]Weapon[/th][th]Wound degree[/th][/tr]
[tr][td colspan='2']...[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Shortsword[/td][td]light[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bastard sword[/td][td]serious[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Greataxe[/td][td]critical[/td][/tr]
[tr][td colspan='2']...[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/spoiler]
...and that a combatant can increase or decrease the wound degree by accepting appropriate penalties (eg, "... for each -5 penalty you take to your attack roll you can increase or decrease a weapon's wound degree by one step ..."), sort of like an inbuilt power attack mechanic. Bonuses to damage, like strength, weapon specialization, or enhancement bonuses would not directly increase the wound degree, but rather act as penalties to your target's "resistance check" (however that may look like).

As said, it's just a very basic idea. :)

Quote from: Ra-Tiel* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)

Can we take class-specific abilities out of the hands of their respective classes? In other words, just because we'd have a Sneak Attack ability, why does it have to be the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability?

My thought is to treat these abilities as a sort of "major feat", with current feats being "minor feats". We could have the "Warrior" class, with a high BAB progression, weak saves, and a high HD, then allow access to, say, Ki Strikes, Sneak Attack, and maybe some Minor Feats, creating a Ninja character.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with developing specific roles as you go along. The worst I could see this doing is being on-par with the d20 system, where you get new abilities at various levels. I think if we leave room for players to choose what abilities they get, it at least becomes a bit more flexible.