The Campaign Builder's Guild

I'll get to the rest later, but first...

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Sdragon1984Why do I keep ability scores? Because everybody has some degree of physical strength, but not everybody is good at climbing.

Does that mean it'll manifest in a manner that properly represents the character? To use an example from the Marvel Universe, Reed Richards obviously has strength, but what strength-based skill should he have? Lifting mechanical duwhatzits?

Quote from: Sdragon1984Does that mean it'll manifest in a manner that properly represents the character? To use an example from the Marvel Universe, Reed Richards obviously has strength, but what strength-based skill should he have? Lifting mechanical duwhatzits?

Well, it will if the player playing the character has assigned the character the appropriate strength-based attributes, skills, and whatnot.

I don't know who Reed Richards is, but a quick google tells me that he's super stretchy. So his abilities would be in that realm... :)

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_GuyStrong Guy[/url].

Quote from: Sdragon1984My point, though, is that "super stretchy" isn't really something that'd be associated with strength.

ultimately, it's their advantages, disadvantages, and skills that really make them special.[/quote]
I agree with you there, which is why I advocated dumping the attributes completely. ;)

But just because the attributes aren't what make the character special doesn't mean that they don't have the attributes. My point with Reed Richards is that, even though it isn't crucial to his character, he obviously still has some strength. Everybody has strength to some degree. Since it isn't crucial to his character, though, how could it be represented in a manner other then attributes?


Anyway, I updated the Energy section to reflect my ideas on how to handle mental tasks. I should be updating the Attributes section to follow suit sometime soon.

Okay, I've updated Attributes, Disadvantages, and Skills. Skills still needs a bit more of an update, but that will come soon enough.

I think that skills and their development is going to help me get a better handle on the system.  I use a very skill-intensive system.  I'm going to need to know how atributes afect skills, as well.

I like your simple-but-elegant energy expenditure system.  It looks very adaptable for all sorts of conditions.  Should allow for multiple levels of ability as well, and truly heroic individuals will have more energy.

Though I am not a big advantages/disadvantes guy, I must say your Hulk argument is sound, for what you are using it for.

A few notes that are all over the place. Some based on your system, the rest from the comments:

In regards to energy: Does it require (precious) energy just to drive straight ahead? Of course, a person would have to rest if driving far enough, but is that what you want energy to represent? It sounds more like you expend your energy doing fancy/dangerous stuff (such as a car chase). Maybe some uses of a skill shouldn't cost energy (if the DC is a certain value below the skill level of the character?)


My opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.
I would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).
I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).


Under "Radar/Sonar" - the "Extra source" seems somewhat expensive (though I am still not sure the value of a point). I would only take it if I felt the GM was out to screw me over with that ability.

In regards to skills costing either Mental or Physical energy: Why not either make the action decide which of those two is used, or just have the player pick (this could be used to beef up some skills if needed).


Attributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.


Dice/less: In regards to the dice discussion, if you did want dice, you could go with a 3d6 or 2d10 system, to create more average rolls - but it will never remove the problem totally. You could also have 3 rolls as I believe was mentioned.


In regards to the problem of missing 1 point to be able to do a skill: Maybe keep the skill and energy, but add a slight randomizer (which will make people use more than the exact needed energy in their actions). An option could be to roll 2d4, one being + and one being - to the total energy spent. Or just 1d4-2 (for instance).



That was it. Just ask if anything didn't make sense (likely!). :)

Quote from: NeubertA few notes that are all over the place. Some based on your system, the rest from the comments:

In regards to energy: Does it require (precious) energy just to drive straight ahead? Of course, a person would have to rest if driving far enough, but is that what you want energy to represent? It sounds more like you expend your energy doing fancy/dangerous stuff (such as a car chase). Maybe some uses of a skill shouldn't cost energy (if the DC is a certain value below the skill level of the character?)

You expend large amounts of energy doing the fancy, complicated stuff, but you still expend small amounts of energy doing more mundane stuff, too. Like you said, if you drive long enough, it will eventually take it's toll on you, even under ideal conditions. If, for example, the GM decides that one EP will allow a character to drive for, say, half an hour, and the character has 5 EP to spend in driving, then that character can drive for 3 1/2 hours straight before they have to pull over for a quick 30 minute power nap (which will allow them to drive for another half hour). If the character is Energetic, they can drive indefinitely, unless the conditions worsen enough to require more then one EP every half hour.

QuoteMy opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.

...

I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).

Hm. I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. On the one hand, you seem to be worried about min/maxing, but on the other hand, you seem to be worried that the disadvantages might conflict with the advantages. The reason Disadvantages allow extra CP is balance issues. If a drawback doesn't allow a way to make up for it elsewhere, then there's no point to it, since it only nerfs the character.

QuoteI would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).

I might not have been clear on this, but that's how it is at character creation. You only need to get a disadvantage if you want to add a new advantage to an already established character.

QuoteUnder "Radar/Sonar" - the "Extra source" seems somewhat expensive (though I am still not sure the value of a point). I would only take it if I felt the GM was out to screw me over with that ability.

In the end result, I doubt any of the costs will be what they originally were. I chose that for the cost of that advantage simply because it's cheaper then trying to take the advantage twice with two different sources, but ultimately has the same effect. The main reason I have that ability is base on my personal complaint of the Speak Language skill in d20; no matter how many different languages your character can fluently speak-- or, for that matter, how many languages can be understood by the entire party-- it still doesn't stop the GM fiat of the locals into speaking Foo. This option helps prevent that.

QuoteIn regards to skills costing either Mental or Physical energy: Why not either make the action decide which of those two is used, or just have the player pick (this could be used to beef up some skills if needed).

I'd have to have it so that that decision could only be made once for each skill. Otherwise, I might as well just use one Energy Pool, equal to INT + DUR. Right now, the player choose which pool they want to associate with that skill when they get the skill, and the character keeps that Pool for the skill.

In other words, you can choose tracking as a mental skill, and say that your character knows how to interpret footprints and animal droppings, or you can choose it as a physical skill and say that you're part bloodhound.

QuoteAttributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.

A big part of his argument of a physical emphasis was, at the time, Energy was strictly based on the Durability Attribute. Now that I've changed that, I'm hoping to get a few more opinions, and maybe even a revised opinion from Ra-Tiel. Thank you for mentioning this. Is there any way you could elaborate?

QuoteDice/less: In regards to the dice discussion, if you did want dice, you could go with a 3d6 or 2d10 system, to create more average rolls - but it will never remove the problem totally. You could also have 3 rolls as I believe was mentioned.


In regards to the problem of missing 1 point to be able to do a skill: Maybe keep the skill and energy, but add a slight randomizer (which will make people use more than the exact needed energy in their actions). An option could be to roll 2d4, one being + and one being - to the total energy spent. Or just 1d4-2 (for instance).

So far, the only real argument I've heard against the diceless approach is that it's not traditional. I feel that it is a working solution to several problems. Yes, it's possible that there are other decent solutions to these problems, and those solutions might be able to exist in a more traditional dice-based system, but I haven't really heard any problems inherent in a diceless system.

I think the problem of highly skilled characters failing simple tasks has been handled in dice-based systems (out of the three I've looked at, d20 handles it the worst, GURPS handles it quite a bit better, and Old WOD handles it the best), but like you said, the problem would never be removed totally in a dice-based system.

QuoteThat was it. Just ask if anything didn't make sense (likely!). :)

It wasn't too bad, actually. I had to reread a couple places to be sure of what you meant, but I could follow a lot of what you were trying to say. Hopefully my responses cleared up some of the issues :)

QuoteSo far, the only real argument I've heard against the diceless approach is that it's not traditional. I feel that it is a working solution to several problems. Yes, it's possible that there are other decent solutions to these problems, and those solutions might be able to exist in a more traditional dice-based system, but I haven't really heard any problems inherent in a diceless system.

I think the problem of highly skilled characters failing simple tasks has been handled in dice-based systems (out of the three I've looked at, d20 handles it the worst, GURPS handles it quite a bit better, and Old WOD handles it the best), but like you said, the problem would never be removed totally in a dice-based system.

against[/i] the dice approach is "it's non-standard." ;)

What I mean is that it's entirely possible to eliminate the problem of failing simple tasks without excising dice completely.  For example, a while ago I was working on a more "realistic" system for an alternate world history campaign - very un-heroic, death is really easy, etcetera.  I had nine "levels" of expertise in every skill, from Untrained to Master.  If your character's skill level was equal to or greater than the level of the task, it was an automatic success; if the level of the task was higher than your own, dice were called in depending on your attributes and other factors, and if it was much higher level than your failure was automatic.

At any rate it is very possible to design systems where dice are only involved if, and only if, a situation arises in which failure is feasible.  I removed critical failures on routine tasks in the system I just mentioned precisely because I agree with all the critics of critical fumbles.  I just don't think that dice are the problem, but rather the critical fumbles themselves.

At some point it may just come to a need for DM adjudication, especially if the game system is extremely simple, and thus lacking mechanics to describe and handle every contingency.  DMs step in all the time to say "yeah, you don't need to roll for that, it's a given" or "I can definitely see a chance for failure in this situation, roll it."  I think many gamers (and world-builders?) are of a "lawful" mindset about this, where they feel awkward substituting judgment for actual rules, but sometimes you have to just roll with it (pardon the pun).

I'm ultimately for the inclusion of some dice because of the importance of randomness in non-marginal encounters, where success is quite plausible and so is failure.  The best example is two combatants of roughly equal skill and ability.  Without using randomness, how do you determine who wins?  Who has the most energy left?  The equal contest is to diceless systems as the "failure on a routine task" is to dice systems.  I would argue that a compromise is the best solution, where diceless methods decide the marginal cases and dice mechanics resolve the close contests.

But I am looking forward to seeing where you go with this regardless of where dice end up, including the garbage heap where they're currently located. :)

Quote[blockquote]My opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.

...

I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).

Hm. I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. On the one hand, you seem to be worried about min/maxing, but on the other hand, you seem to be worried that the disadvantages might conflict with the advantages. The reason Disadvantages allow extra CP is balance issues. If a drawback doesn't allow a way to make up for it elsewhere, then there's no point to it, since it only nerfs the character.[/blockquote]

and

Quote[blockquote]I would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).

I might not have been clear on this, but that's how it is at character creation. You only need to get a disadvantage if you want to add a new advantage to an already established character.[/blockquote]

My point with the example of the strong, but blind character was that (if I understood you correctly) taking disadvantages gives you CP which can either be used for advantages or be spent on attributes. This means I can make a character with a bunch of disadvantages, but with very high attributes. I would counter this (and the first problem with min/maxing), by making disadvantages worth less points (example: an advantage that gives +2 to an energy pool might cost 4 CP and a disadvantage that gives -2 to an energy pool will only give 2 CP).

I know in some systems, disadvantages are not required, but simply an option for players to take if they want to give their character some flavor.

----

I think we might also be talking a bit past each other in the second part. Is it correctly understood that in your system, I can take a disadvantage and either spend the CP it gives on raising my attributes or to buy advantages? Does it also go the other way around so that I can buy advantages with the CP I would normally use to buy attributes?

Quote[blockquote]Attributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.

A big part of his argument of a physical emphasis was, at the time, Energy was strictly based on the Durability Attribute. Now that I've changed that, I'm hoping to get a few more opinions, and maybe even a revised opinion from Ra-Tiel. Thank you for mentioning this. Is there any way you could elaborate?[/blockquote]

It seems like there are 3 stats governing physical and only 1 for mental. If I want to make a smart character (assuming extremes here), I can pool lots of points into one stat, whereas a character focusing in the physical department would have to spend points in 3 attributes (where one of them is the most expensive one, at 4 CP/point). Of course, I am not sure what your strength and dexterity attributes cover, but this was my initial thought.

@Vreeg: "simple yet elegant" is, I think, my own personal design philosophy. I think there are ways to cover many scenarios that don't use a million and ten tables and charts.

@Polycarp: I have a few "pre-alpha" ideas in my head about how to handle those situations. In short, two balanced-but-different characters are each going to have their own strengths and weaknesses. A wrestler would easily out-grapple a boxer, even if they were equally skilled fighters. Likewise, the boxer would out-hit the wrestler.

@Neubert: I suppose there is an issue of unclarity here. In the example you gave, I'd definitely have  the cost of the advantage and disadvantage as balanced as possible. When I have Charisma and Repulsiveness worked out, you'll see what I mean. As for the rest, I think you're right, we probably are talking over each other's heads, and possibly about two ever-so-slightly different issues. Maybe we should put this one on the back burner for a bit?

Sure, looking forward to your updates :)

No problem :)

But in the meantime, does anybody else have any questions or suggestions?

I like your Energy (EP) concept, but I'm not sure if 5-10 EP points would be enough to perform a full day of actions? Maybe I'm not quite getting how one would spend EP points: every few seconds (e.g. combat) ? or do the effects skill check last say an hour or so?