Penumbra: A Rules System for the Cadaverous Earth

[Rose-of-Vellum]

LIFESTYLE

Tracking every time a PC pays for a room, buys liquor, or pays a gate tax can swiftly become obnoxious and tiresome, as can enumerating the totality of an individual's possessions. A more realistic and easier-to-use method is to have PCs pay a recurring 'cost of living' fee. At the start of every game month, a PC must pay an amount of currency* equal to the lifestyle bracket she wishes to live in—if she can't afford her desired bracket, she drops down to the first one she can afford.

*Different coinage predominates the Twilight Cities. Inside Macellaria, obeloi are the common currency; in Skein, only crowns are accepted. However, most monies are weighed against the gibber-pence, otherwise known as the Harlequin's chit, a currency minted and favored by the merchant-princes of Crepuscle.

INDIGENT (0 pence/month): The PC is homeless and lives in the wilderness or on the streets. An indigent character must track every purchase, and may need to resort to hunting, begging, or thieving to feed herself.

POOR (3 pence/month): The PC lives in a cheap flophouse, crowded tenement, or similar residence—this is the lifestyle of most untrained laborers. She need not track purchases of meals, taxes, or petty expenditures that cost 1 halfpence or less.

DECENT (10 pence/month): The PC lives in her own tenement, private chamber, small rowhome, or similar location—this is the lifestyle of most trained or skilled laborers. She can secure any mundane item worth 1 pence or less from her residence after a cursory search, and need not track purchases of meals, taxes, or petty expenditures that cost 1 pence or less.

AFFLUENT (100 pence/month): The PC has a modest if well-funished abode, an aged manor, or a fine suite of rooms in a respectable domicile. She can secure any mundane item worth 5 pence or less from her residence after a cursory search, and need only track purchases of meals, taxes, or petty expenditures in excess of 10 pence.

LAVISH (1,000 pence/month): The PC lives in a manse, palace, cathedral, or other opulent home—she might even own the building in question. This is the lifestyle of most aristocrats. She can secure any mundane item worth 25 pence or less from her residence after a cursory search. She need only track purchases of meals, taxes, or petty expenditures in excess of 100 pence.

[sparkletwist]

This is an interesting system. I definitely see the Numenera roots here, but I'm not intimately familiar with that system, so some of my comments and criticisms may seem redundant to those with more experience with that system than me.

Anyway, I think it was a good move to abandon the rather odd "multiply everything times 3" approach taken by Numenera and just use a d6. The granularity ends up a good bit coarser than using a d20, of course, but I think that so much of math of Numenera was based around the coarser level anyway, so you're likely not introducing any new problems. That said, not being all that familiar with Numenera, the die rolling mechanic did take a bit for me to wrap my head around. It seems like nothing about the character's capabilities inherently adds any bonuses: what you end up doing is accruing Edge which allows you to invest Grit without depleting your Pools, and that, in effect, works as bonuses, but it all comes across as a bit fiddly and could probably stand a clearer and more detailed explanation as to how it actually is supposed to work.

The idea of skills simply being a +1 or +2 on top of that also helps to keep the math simple, but the lack of a defined skill list might create problems. It seems like players would benefit from trying to talk their way into having the most generic skills possible. Most games with a list of skills suffer from some skills being more useful than others, so a defined skill list isn't a 100% fix for this, but at least having a defined list of skills (even if they are rather broad skills) shows everyone roughly what "a skill" can do, and breaks everything into some approximate categories that can then be mapped onto common in-game tasks. Your rough list sort of works as a list, but nowhere does it actually say what each skill is for, and it adds in the option of professional skills that can break the system open again: one character could call himself, say, a "Private Investigator" and justifiably be good at all sorts of adventuring behavior, while another one has invested an equal number of resources in, say, "Jumping."

But anyway. I think the bigger balance problem here-- which I think existed in Numenera as well, although I'm not sure-- is that fighter-types are still sort of inadequate as power levels rise. The cynical part of me says "Monte Cook made it, so of course that's how it is." I mean, things start off all right, though I do think Gutter-Witchcraft is so fantastically versatile the fighter might have a hard time keeping pace with his cohorts unless he has much broader skills than the magic-types, giving him an equal shot at talking the GM into letting him do stuff. However, things start go downhill rapidly as levels go up, and tier six is basically high level D&D 3.x all over again: the Warrior is good at instantly killing bad guys, while meanwhile the Theurge has had "kill a guy instantly" since tier four (not to mention invisibility, transmutation and all kinds of other awesomeness) and he worked his way up to teleporting wherever he wants and controlling the weather. So, it seems like we're dealing with linear Warriors and quadratic Theurges, and I'm really not sure if that's what you want.

I'm not a fan of the way Numenera uses XP, and I was a little disappointed to see that you seem to have retained this mechanic wholesale. The idea of the "GM intrusion" isn't bad, but I don't like how it uses your character advancement resource as its currency. I'd rather see the currency of GM intrusions being something like FATE's fate points, that is, a meta-point resource that is explicitly designed to be temporary and designed to let players tweak the story in their favor and gain a reward for when the GM does the same against them. Instead, what happens is you have the opportunity to pay your hard-earned XP in order to... lose the chance to get more XP, basically. Ultimately, it's a question of "permanent gain" vs. "temporary gain" and it's fairly certain which option players are going to opt for, which means that most of the player agency sort of disappears from intrusions.

I have other minor issues, but those are the major ones, and I don't want to complain too much. :grin:

[TheMeanestGuest]

Hmmm. This is very interesting, though I am still digesting it, and need to give it another read through. I am not at all familiar with Numenara, however, and I'm curious if you intend to incorporate character modularity as a base element - that is, say, a template or additional archetype or focus or what have you that could be dropped atop an existing character as they progress. I think this is probably important when considering the Cadaverous Earth, given its strange and volatile nature. 

[LD]

Good idea.
Regarding the 11 levels of task difficulty, why not make it 12?

Why is a debility only 2 levels of difficulty?
Being asked to tie a knot without arms is significantly more difficult than just a DC 1 to DC 3 increase

[Rose-of-Vellum]

Excellent feedback, all of you!  Definitely what I was hoping for.

Before responding more specifically, I did want to pause and offer two caveats. First, I want to reiterate that, despite a good bit of modification, I am largely using a system someone else created rather creating one whole-cloth. Beyond wanting to give credit where credit is due, I reason this also gives me a sense of detachment -i.e., I'm not beholden to any particular rule or mechanic out of sentimentality or monetary motivation. In the end, my goal is to fashion together a system that meets my needs as a GM, helps facilitate the setting's elements, and is enjoyable to players. So, if changing, adding, or chopping some mechanic accomplishes one of those goals without compromising the other two, I'm all for editing the rules further. At the same time, said goals don't need platonic perfection. Good enough is good enough.

Additionally, I'm interested in knowing what people think about the racial traits. Do they match your view of the races?

Now, as to your specific remarks:

I definitely see the Numenera roots here, but I'm not intimately familiar with that system, so some of my comments and criticisms may seem redundant to those with more experience with that system than me.

Although the chassis clearly comes from Numenara's system, my aim is that the above rules can stand on their own, that someone who has never heard of Numenara can nonetheless understand Penumbra's rules.  

Anyway, I think it was a good move to abandon the rather odd "multiply everything times 3" approach taken by Numenera and just use a d6. The granularity ends up a good bit coarser than using a d20, of course, but I think that so much of math of Numenera was based around the coarser level anyway, so you're likely not introducing any new problems. That said, not being all that familiar with Numenera, the die rolling mechanic did take a bit for me to wrap my head around.

Thanks. I know Monte created the wonky x3 mechanic in part to allow the use of the d20, which does admittedly have a certain nostalgic charm. However, I thought it caused significant complexity for a paltry payoff -especially for pbp and IRC games where physical dice are less frequently used. Even for games that do use physical dice, the stripped down rule means you only need a d6 to play. Not to mention that a difficulty scale of 0-10 is far more intuitive than a scale of 0-30, both for GMs and players.

It seems like nothing about the character's capabilities inherently adds any bonuses: what you end up doing is accruing Edge which allows you to invest Grit without depleting your Pools, and that, in effect, works as bonuses

Depends on how you define "capabilities". Assuming your are referring to the three stat Pools, you are correct, they do not provide direct bonuses to task rolls, nor do they directly reduce task DCs. Indirectly, they provide numerous bonuses. First, higher stat Pools make you more resilient to damage, be it physical or mental. Second, higher stat Pools allow you to apply greater and more frequent levels of Grit, which can reduce task DCs (in Penumbra, the major, but not sole, name of the game is reducing DCs) or add more damage, as per player choice. Third, higher stat Pools allow you to use more powerful abilities, and/or use them more frequently. In many cases, this translates into "bonus" damage or similarly beneficial results. So, stat Pools are quite important.

One part I do enjoy about the system is this -the relative simplicity/complexity of tactics is up to the players. The GM is allowed to focus on being a story teller, as the players make all the rolls. If players want to strategize over every Pool expenditure like a grand chess game, they can. If they want to play fast and loose, they can. But GMs don't have to worry about NPC stat pools, grit, and edge. Indeed, some of those elements could be stripped if people wanted a simpler game. For instance, if I were GMing with my kids, we might ignore Edge and Grit altogether.  

but it all comes across as a bit fiddly and could probably stand a clearer and more detailed explanation as to how it actually is supposed to work.

Super-helpful feedback, so I thank you again. Is there are specific line or paragraph that is confusing and should be rewritten? Or would an added example better clarify and convey how things work? If so, where exactly would you propose putting said example(s)?

The lack of a defined skill list might create problems. It seems like players would benefit from trying to talk their way into having the most generic skills possible. Most games with a list of skills suffer from some skills being more useful than others, so a defined skill list isn't a 100% fix for this, but at least having a defined list of skills (even if they are rather broad skills) shows everyone roughly what "a skill" can do, and breaks everything into some approximate categories that can then be mapped onto common in-game tasks. Your rough list sort of works as a list, but nowhere does it actually say what each skill is for, and it adds in the option of professional skills that can break the system open again: one character could call himself, say, a "Private Investigator" and justifiably be good at all sorts of adventuring behavior, while another one has invested an equal number of resources in, say, "Jumping."

You raise a good point, although most players I have dealt with have been reasonable, especially if the GM tows a line of common sense. Moreover, in a world as eclectic and ambiguous as CE, I don't see an exhaustive, mutually exclusive list of skills as being beneficial -or practical. I'll certainly keep this concern in mind, however, as I playtest the rules and run a few games with different players.

I think the bigger balance problem here is that fighter-types are still sort of inadequate as power levels rise. I mean, things start off all right, though I do think Gutter-Witchcraft is so fantastically versatile the fighter might have a hard time keeping pace with his cohorts unless he has much broader skills than the magic-types, giving him an equal shot at talking the GM into letting him do stuff. However, things start go downhill rapidly as levels go up, and tier six is basically high level D&D 3.x all over again: the Warrior is good at instantly killing bad guys, while meanwhile the Theurge has had "kill a guy instantly" since tier four (not to mention invisibility, transmutation and all kinds of other awesomeness) and he worked his way up to teleporting wherever he wants and controlling the weather. So, it seems like we're dealing with linear Warriors and quadratic Theurges, and I'm really not sure if that's what you want.

I appreciate this concern, and I would like to avoid not only an imbalance between the archetypes but also the perception of an imbalance.

I heartily agree with your take on 3e (PF rectified, or perhaps even overcorrected, the imbalance but not the perception, though that may be because of 3e's lingering bad taste).

I think Penumbra is different though, in that warriors always remain the best as dealing damage. Not only because their maneuvers grant them the most damaging combos, but also because they remain the best at hitting attack DCs with multiple attack options. They also remain the most resilient archetype (certain rogue builds may match them) against physical damage. So, unlike 3e wizards, theurges can't do everything that a warrior can, and better.

So, it isn't a case where a warrior's damage progresses in a linear fashion, and a theurge's damage output progresses in a quadratic fashion.

As for comparing the 'slay' abilities, the warrior's does come two tiers later, but it is more powerful (slays up to level 5 vs level 3 creatures), versatile (warriors can use melee or range attacks, but the theurge must touch), cheaper (3 vs 6 points from one's Pool), and more likely to work (a warrior by this point will likely have mastery in the attack role while the theurge will most likely not even have expertise in that one esotery).

As for controlling weather, yes, a six-tier theurge can do that while a warrior has no similarly magical ability. But that's because they are warriors, not witches. Also, to reiterate the comparative point cost, six-tier theurge esoteries cost 10,9,8+, and six-tier warrior maneuvers cost 5,3,5,5. All in all, theurge abilities tend to cost more and do less damage. The archetypes have different niches, and those niches appeal to different kinds of players and campaigns.

Still, I may be prone to confirmation bias. So to seek some clarification, I would love if you might answer the following:

1. Do you feel the theurge is too powerful compared to the warrior and rogue, or do you feel the warrior is too weak compared to the rogue and theurge?
2. If the former, which abilities do you feel make it so?
3. If the latter, which types of abilities would you give to warriors to make them stronger?

For example, would giving them a 4th tier "slay" maneuver help (and call the six-tier maneuver something like 'dread slayer'?      

I'm not a fan of the way Numenera uses XP, and I was a little disappointed to see that you seem to have retained this mechanic wholesale. The idea of the "GM intrusion" isn't bad, but I don't like how it uses your character advancement resource as its currency. I'd rather see the currency of GM intrusions being something like FATE's fate points, that is, a meta-point resource that is explicitly designed to be temporary and designed to let players tweak the story in their favor and gain a reward for when the GM does the same against them. Instead, what happens is you have the opportunity to pay your hard-earned XP in order to... lose the chance to get more XP, basically. Ultimately, it's a question of "permanent gain" vs. "temporary gain" and it's fairly certain which option players are going to opt for, which means that most of the player agency sort of disappears from intrusions.

Upon reflection, I totally agree with you. Before I simply scrap that mechanic, would you mind explaining how FATE handles GM intrusion? I'm not familiar with that system.

I look forward to hearing your minor complaints, sparkletwist. Your major ones have been quite helpful.

I'm curious if you intend to incorporate character modularity as a base element - that is, say, a template or additional archetype or focus or what have you that could be dropped atop an existing character as they progress.

Would you mind elaborating on the above? Specifically on what you mean by character modularity and why such might be particularly important for CE games? I might hazard a guess, but I'd rather have a better handle on what you are asking and why.

Regarding the 11 levels of task difficulty, why not make it 12?

Do you see a particular benefit of doing so? I ask such, because I don't see one, besides increasing the range and thus potential differentiation of task difficulty.

However, 1-10 seems, to me at least, far easier to intuit and grasp. I say 1-10, because DC 0 requires no roll, so there are only 10 de facto levels of task difficulty.  

Why is a debility only 2 levels of difficulty?
Being asked to tie a knot without arms is significantly more difficult than just a DC 1 to DC 3 increase

Debility does not mean inability, just a severe weakness or limitation in that task. For example, humans don't have a debility in flying. They are simply unable (barring theurgy, of course). To use an example of what a debility is, versus isn't, consider the cestoid debility in diplomacy. A rock is unable to use diplomacy, but cestoids have alien, but not diminished, intelligence. But the combination of their hideous appearance, cultural stigma from their part in the Imperium, alien minds, smell of offal and slime, and inability to speak vocal languages makes diplomacy very difficult for cestoids -not physically or practically impossible, but significantly less likely.

So, in regards to tying knots, a defect might simply be a person who is clumsy with his hands. A debility might be someone with a gnarled hand or palsy. A person without hands, however, can't tie a knot with hands. Instead, he would have to try to tie a knot with his feet and/or mouth -which is an altogether different task with a much higher DC. Hopefully that clarifies debilities. If not, please let me know.

[TheMeanestGuest]

Some people might disagree with me, but I've always thought of prestige classes as being one of the more enjoyable elements of 3x (D&D, PF, whatever). I like being able to develop my character in ways I might not have ever considered when first creating him or her, and not only via roleplay, but with mechanical representation as well.

This might be coloured by my experience of how Steerpike ran Blood & Bewitchment, and how several party members were presented with circumstances facilitating that kind of thing (Kaius's zehrer, Wispy's demon, Tarim's potential apotheosis, Mr. Carver's endless body modification and accompanying Graftpunk prestige class, Vetter's arm, etc.)

Edit: I am very interested in hearing Steerpike's thoughts, though!

[sparkletwist]

Is there are specific line or paragraph that is confusing and should be rewritten? Or would an added example better clarify and convey how things work? If so, where exactly would you propose putting said example(s)?

The biggest problem, I think, is that for someone (like me) used to systems where dice roll chances improve in direct proportion to growth in character power, like increasing BAB and skill ranks in D&D, putting skill points into FATE skills, or whatever, would be kind of confused as to how this is supposed to work. I'd recommend clearing all this up in the dice mechanic; perhaps putting a note in the section about rolling vs a DC how players would be able to improve the numbers that they are then rolling against that DC would be a good idea.

You raise a good point, although most players I have dealt with have been reasonable, especially if the GM tows a line of common sense. Moreover, in a world as eclectic and ambiguous as CE, I don't see an exhaustive, mutually exclusive list of skills as being beneficial -or practical.

One problem is that "common sense" is pretty subjective, especially when it comes to gaming. Having the group on the same page can help a lot, of course, but, ultimately, there will always be disagreements, and having some concrete rules to fall back on-- like a list of what the skills in the game actually are, what they do, and what general percentage of play tasks "a skill" is expected to be able to help with-- can really streamline things. As for the list of skills fitting the setting, it's much more a gameplay issue than a world design issue; a game will still revolve around certain core tasks, and skills help to break down what those core tasks are and rate how good each character is at them. Putting lots of setting-appropriate example tasks in the description of what each skill does helps with keeping the feel alive, as does allowing specializations or other special use cases to enhance players' own specific incarnation of a somewhat generic skill.

PF rectified, or perhaps even overcorrected, the imbalance

No, it did not... but one game's balance issues at a time, right? :grin:

warriors always remain the best as dealing damage ... All in all, theurge abilities tend to cost more and do less damage.

I'm not familiar enough with the system to be able to confidently agree or disagree, but it is my opinion that all that is ultimately beside the point. While combat is often the part of a game's system that gets the most attention, it's really just one thing. The issue it isn't so much that a Theurge pays more points and does less damage controlling the weather, it's that a Theurge can control the weather, while meanwhile the Warrior can just hit guys. There is a lot that controlling the weather can do in the hands of a player with any creativity whatsoever, and there is often no amount of points that a Warrior can pay to have that much influence over events.

Do you feel the theurge is too powerful compared to the warrior and rogue, or do you feel the warrior is too weak compared to the rogue and there?

I think the answer to that question depends on what flavor you want your game to have. Bringing Theurges down to Warrior level will make everything more gritty and individual-level, while bringing Warriors up to Theurge level will make everything feel more fantastic. Personally, I like player empowerment and over-the-top gonzo sort of fantasy, so I'd personally advocate a power up rather than a power down. Then again, maybe the more "gritty" approach might be more in line with your interpretation of the Cadaverous Earth. I don't know.

Before I simply scrap that mechanic, would you mind explaining how FATE handles GM intrusion? I'm not familiar with that system.

In FATE, it's called a compel, and the basic idea is that something in the situation or perhaps character's own nature compels that character to act in a certain way. It's not supposed to be an intrusion or anything; generally, both the character's player and the GM agree that the compel is appropriate. It's encouraged for players to come up with their own compels, too. Anyway, upon accepting the compel, the player receives a fate point, or the player can pay a fate point to refuse it. Fate points, unlike Numenera XP, are not any sort of character advancement resource. Their sole purpose is for paying for certain meta-game advantages, like invoking an aspect for a +2 on a roll, making a reroll, declaring something about the scene, refusing a future compel, or whatnot. There is never a tradeoff between "permanent" and "temporary" because fate points are always temporary.

I look forward to hearing your minor complaints, sparkletwist.

:D

The combat system seems to feel rather deterministic. Damage is basically flat, and armor is too, so it's fairly easy to predict how much damage a hit will do and how many rounds someone can last. Maybe this is the idea, adding a certain sort of tactics to the game, but it feels a bit video-gamey to me. There is an average chance of +1 damage based on your d6 roll, and maybe a chance to get more via Grit, but I'm not sure if this injects enough chaos and uncertainty into a battle, which should probably feel chaotic and uncertain.

The other thing I'm not a really a fan of are hard-coded racial properties. While I understand that if you have different races, you want to make them different mechanically (and, indeed, if they are biologically different, they should have different abilities) it always has an effect on gameplay, and it's usually negative. In D&D/PF, for example, all giving a race +2 Str and -2 Int really means is that if you want to play a Fighter, you'll look more closely at that race, and if you want to play a Wizard, you won't. I don't think the race+class synergies are so absolute in this system but... in a world with only three classes, I think any amount of race+class synergy can lead to trouble, as each option represents 1/3 of your total options that you have at all ever.

[Rose-of-Vellum]

Ah, thanks for the clarification, the MeanestGuest.

To hopefully answer your question/concern, I see the mechanics facilitating modularity in several ways. First and foremost, non-tier advancement is highly flexible and personalized. By spending XP, you are free to choose to advance in a multitude of ways. Regardless of archetype, focus, or race, you can spend XP to advance any Edge of your choice, add 4 total points to any combination of your Pools, advance any skill, and several other options. Each of these could reflect getting a graft, learning a new hex, being exposed to some bioengineered or daemonic symbiote, receiving special training from a thief-lord or famed duelist, etc. The mechanics are purposefully left open enough for diverse forms of flavor.
Second, each tier advancement of archetype allows you not only to choose maneuvers, tricks, or esoteries you prefer, but also allows you to swap out old ones.

So, to use your examples above (forgive me if I have some details wrong since I have only read the posted IC logs):

When Wispy gained his ability to fling hellfire after his extradimensional jaunt, he might have gained XP forchis trip to Ezekial's manse (and beyond). OOC, this XP could have then been spent to gain a new esotery -his hellfire bolts mechanically could be represented by gaining Eldritch Strike. Tarim's potential apotheosis sounds like it would be best represented by a focus (above and beyond tier advancement in theurge). Carver's grafts would mechanically be represented by advancing Pools, skills, tricks, and/or a focus (i.e., Graftpunk). Same with Vetter's arm (though less so, since  I never got the sense that the hand progressed in power, but that might be my ignorance). Kaius' case is the most complex, because the zehrer, I understand, would in effect change your 'race'. Thus, your racial traits would change, or at least add the nascent zehrer's traits, and you might similarly be able to choose a new focus or have your future advancement options be 'spent' in a way that reflects the growing bond -or it might allow you to pick new advancement options (like an esotery that costs Intellect points but allows you to create/control zombic creatures, and/or an esotery that grants telepathy).

Compared to systems like 3e and their ilk, Penumbra is exceedingly flexible. The mechanics are designed to allow multiple interpretations or representations of flavor (e.g., soul-tintering, grafts, training, new inborn talents manifesting, etc.).

[LD]

12 represents 2d6 and yes, as you note, it does increase the range of task difficulties, and it would allow you to roll for a 'random difficulty level' for a task.
e.g. GM wants to generate a task and doesn't know how difficult to make it; thus, GM can roll on the task table to determine the difficulty level- 12 corresponding to 0 and the rest corresponding to 1-11.


>> Instead, he would have to try to tie a knot with his feet and/or mouth -which is an altogether different task with a much higher DC. Hopefully that clarifies debilities. If not, please let me know.

That did clarify, but I probably should have given a different example even though this is a nitpick- a person who has broken hands- that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to tie a knot with them. The person would have more than a mere debility- they would have a serious debility, a -4 or -6 more difficult ranking. The solution probably is just as simple as mentioning "serious disabilities" in your writeup.

I'm interested in seeing your system in action.

[Rose-of-Vellum]

The biggest problem, I think, is that for someone (like me) used to systems where dice roll chances improve in direct proportion to growth in character power... would be kind of confused as to how this is supposed to work. I'd recommend clearing all this up in the dice mechanic; perhaps putting a note in the section about rolling vs a DC how players would be able to improve the numbers that they are then rolling against that DC would be a good idea.

Hmm, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that most games revolve around adding bonuses to rolls in order to hit static DCs, whereas these rules do the opposite (i.e., 'bonuses' reduce DCs while roll modifiers remain static ) and this makes Penumbra initially confusing to veteran gamers. Yes? If so, I agree. I'm not sure the confusion is significant or lasting enough to merit changing the rules -but it might be (hence me posting for feedback and appreciating it greatly).

If others feel the same (or you feel confident about the point), I could reverse the mechanics a bit, making it so that skill, benefactions, and Grit provide bonuses to player rolls rather than reduce DCs. Similarly, flaws, damage, and hindrances would add penalties to player rolls rather than increase DCs. Last change would be, if a PC's net modifier for a task was equal to the DC, the player wouldn't have to roll, they could automatically succeed (but forgo the chance of getting a minor or major benefit).  

I think these changes would lose a bit of conceptual nuance, but they, as I think you are suggesting, would make the rules easier to grasp for most gamers. Or maybe that's not what you mean.

One problem is that "common sense" is pretty subjective, especially when it comes to gaming.

True, but since my primary goal of designing the system is to personally use it, this issue is nigh-moot. If I lack a decent level of common sense, a codified set of skills isn't going to significantly help my game be good. If I have said common sense (or enough of it), the benefit of creating/writing an exhaustive, mutually exclusive set of skills doesn't outweigh the cost of spending the time and energy to craft said list.

As for the list of skills fitting the setting, it's much more a gameplay issue than a world design issue; a game will still revolve around certain core tasks, and skills help to break down what those core tasks are and rate how good each character is at them.

I definitely agree that certain skills will have greater importance in some games than in others. If I were GMing a CE piratical campaign, swimming, navigation, and sailing would all be pretty salient. Far less so if I were GMing a CE urban-intrigue campaign, where skills like diplomacy, deception, and perception might be more important. CE as a setting can incorporate both kinds of campaigns, as can Penumbra. Plot and encounters moreso determine which skills have higher frequency/utility in a campaign.    

Putting lots of setting-appropriate example tasks in the description of what each skill does helps with keeping the feel alive

Perhaps what I shall do is provide a description of some of the already proffered skills, specifically through a CE lens (e.g., neterology takes on another meaning in a world filled with grave-spawn).

PF rectified, or perhaps even overcorrected, the imbalance

No, it did not... but one game's balance issues at a time, right? :grin:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, as I have been playing/GMing nearly continuously in PF games since the beta (and played/GMed for all of 3e, and much of 2e) and my far-beyond anecdotal experiences have consistently evidenced my aforementioned statement, in multiple campaigns from level 1-20 with numerous warrior vs magic-user combinations. But as you said, PF's class balance is another subject, and one not necessarily pertinent to Penumbra's archetype balance, or lack thereof.

While combat is often the part of a game's system that gets the most attention, it's really just one thing.

True, but for most games that are published, it's a central one, especially if we broaden the context of combat to include surviving physical threats, which warriors generally excel at compared to theurges. CE games, from what I have seen, are no different. And just because warriors are generally the best at dealing and taking physical damage, that doesn't mean they are useless outside of combat. Between racial traits, flexible skill selection and advancement, dispositions, and foci, warriors can have a number of efficacious non-damaging and non-combat abilities. Indeed, some of those options allow for a warrior character to use witchcraft, technology, or other means to produce eldritch, supernatural effects.  

The issue it isn't so much that a Theurge pays more points and does less damage controlling the weather, it's that a Theurge can control the weather, while meanwhile the Warrior can just hit guys.

I think the above statement misses a few points and reduces/exaggerates others. As hopefully explained above, warriors can do more than just "hit guys" -regardless of the fact that, as also said above, the ability to hit, deal damage, avoid being hit, and endure damage is extremely efficacious in most games. Even at initial tiers, their abilities aren't just mundane, but include preternatural capabilities.
Moreover, warriors being able to use their abilities more frequently, and less taxingly, than witches is salient. From a mechanical angle, it definitely gives them access to greater tactical usage of Grit, Pool, archetype abilities, etc. From a conceptual angle, it reinforces an important reality: it's tiring to leap up a 40 ft. demon's back, shrug off its flesh-eating miasma, break off its horn with your bare hands, and use it to trepanate its fiendish skull -but plunging your mind so deep into the Aether that you can tear a hole through multiple planes of reality is far more taxing to the mind. Only the most talented of witches could attempt it, and doing so has very severe costs -one literally risks one's sanity. Ripping several planar holes is even more dangerous, perhaps prohibitively so. Meanwhile, the warrior is still climbing up daemonic backsides and caving in skulls. He can't do it forever before physical strain overtakes him, but he can keep going for far longer.

So, dimensional travel and weather control are undeniably big-ticket, big-scale items, but they nearly all come at the end of advancement, and even then, aren't things that are done lightly or frequently. Comparing a theurge's blast to a warrior's set of maneuvers give a better indication of archetype balance or lack thereof.  Since, unlike 3e, Penumbra characters are likely to use lower-tier abilities quite frequently, even at higher tiers.

There is a lot that controlling the weather can do in the hands of a player with any creativity whatsoever, and there is often no amount of points that a Warrior can pay to have that much influence over events.

Depends on the plot and challenge. If a demon prince is trying to kill you or your loved ones, being able to survive its onslaught and successfully slay it is a lot more influential than being able to make it rain for a square mile. Context is key.

In the end, warriors specialize in warfare. Killing -and surviving attempts to kill them- is their art. Not flying, not transdimensional travel, not divination. But just because an archetype specializes in warfare doesn't mean the character can't have other specialties and capabilities -it just means that they get them from race, disposition, focus, XP, and/or items.  

Do you feel the theurge is too powerful compared to the warrior and rogue, or do you feel the warrior is too weak compared to the rogue and there?

I think the answer to that question depends on what flavor you want your game to have.

My question is more about the triadic balance. You haven't yet mentioned how you think rogues balance out against warriors and theurges, so I was/am hoping you might.

In FATE, it's called a compel, and the basic idea is that something in the situation or perhaps character's own nature compels that character to act in a certain way. It's not supposed to be an intrusion or anything; generally, both the character's player and the GM agree that the compel is appropriate. It's encouraged for players to come up with their own compels, too. Anyway, upon accepting the compel, the player receives a fate point, or the player can pay a fate point to refuse it. Fate points, unlike Numenera XP, are not any sort of character advancement resource. Their sole purpose is for paying for certain meta-game advantages, like invoking an aspect for a +2 on a roll, making a reroll, declaring something about the scene, refusing a future compel, or whatnot. There is never a tradeoff between "permanent" and "temporary" because fate points are always temporary.

Interesting. Some of that I could see being adjudicated through disposition and racial traits and benefactions/hindrances.
Alternatively, I might envision changing the rules so that good role-playing (which seems to be what you describe -i.e., acting in character despite OOC-knowledge or consequences, heightening or reinforcing themes, etc.) allows GMs to award Grit points rather than XP, and that you spend Grit from a pool of Grit points rather than your stat Pools. XP would only be awarded for goal completion/major task achievement.

The combat system seems to feel rather deterministic. Damage is basically flat, and armor is too, so it's fairly easy to predict how much damage a hit will do and how many rounds someone can last. Maybe this is the idea, adding a certain sort of tactics to the game, but it feels a bit video-gamey to me. There is an average chance of +1 damage based on your d6 roll, and maybe a chance to get more via Grit, but I'm not sure if this injects enough chaos and uncertainty into a battle, which should probably feel chaotic and uncertain.

I can see where someone might feel this way. The system does aim to reduce roll-playing so players and GMs can focus on role-playing and storytelling. However, I would say that, despite not rolling for damage, damage can vary based on a number of factors. Roll a 1, and you sure aren't dealing damage –at least not to your foes. Roll a 5 or a 6, and damage differentially increases –unless you decide instead to create a minor or major effect. You can apply Grit to increase damage, and you can use abilities that enhance or change your damage. And all of these variables interact with one another.  Consequently, one can estimate and plan, but not truly predict how much damage you will do –especially since you cannot generally be sure your attack will succeed in the first place. So against foes whose net attack DCs are more than 0, you definitely cannot predict how many rounds an enemy will last.

Removing damage rolling definitely reduces chance, but from gameplay experience, I have seen that it also dramatically decreases tedium, increases efficiency, and allows players and GMs to spend more time role-playing versus roll-playing, even with IRC formats, much less table top and pbp ones.

The other thing I'm not a really a fan of are hard-coded racial properties. While I understand that if you have different races, you want to make them different mechanically (and, indeed, if they are biologically different, they should have different abilities) it always has an effect on gameplay, and it's usually negative. In D&D/PF, for example, all giving a race +2 Str and -2 Int really means is that if you want to play a Fighter, you'll look more closely at that race, and if you want to play a Wizard, you won't. I don't think the race+class synergies are so absolute in this system but... in a world with only three classes, I think any amount of race+class synergy can lead to trouble, as each option represents 1/3 of your total options that you have at all ever.

We may simply have a difference of stylistic preferences here. For me, it is more important that mechanics match flavor, and reinforce those racial disparities. Some races are, all other things being equal, just going to be better than other races at certain tasks. However, all other things don't have to be equal, and as Penumbra is written, there are quite a few things that might be different, above and beyond race and archetype, namely disposition, XP expenditure, focus, equipment, and tier.

So, let me know what you think about the above thoughts, queries, and suggestions, and please let me know if there are any other issues of concern –and thank you once again for all your helpful feedback!

[Rose-of-Vellum]

12 represents 2d6 and yes, it does increase the range of task difficulties. It would allow you to roll for a 'random difficulty level' for a task.
e.g. GM wants to generate a task and doesn't know how difficult to make it; thus, GM can roll on the task table to determine the difficulty level- 12 corresponding to 0 and the rest corresponding to 1-11.

Ah, I see your intent. Personally, I wouldn't ever want to create a random DC, just in the same way I wouldn't want to roll a random AC for a monster or a random DC to resist an archmage's spell. If some GM did -and I couldn't dissuade him or her, I would suggest rolling the 2d6. Subtract 1 from whatever the total roll is and there is your random DC. But then I would try dissuading him or her again from creating a random DC; instead, I would suggest he or she consider how difficult the task is, perhaps by suggesting a few benchmarks (i.e., is it easier or harder than X,Y,Z). But I tend to put a lot of prep into my games, so that might be more a matter of style and preference.  

That did clarify, but I probably should have given a different example even though this is a nitpick- a person who has broken hands- that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to tie a knot with them. The person would have more than a mere debility- they would have a serious debility, a -4 or -6 more difficult ranking. The solution probably is just as simple as mentioning "serious disabilities" in your writeup.

I see your point. How about a line like:

"Certain tasks, due to either severely disadvantageous circumstances or extreme character disability, might have their difficulty raised by more than 2 steps or be outright impossible. For example, humans -barring witchcraft, technology, or similar intervention- cannot attempt tasks that involve flying. Alternatively, a clumsy person who has his hands horribly broken might have the DC of a simple task like tying a knot increased by more than 2 steps. In some cases, circumstances might be so severe that a GM rules that the task has become an altogether different activity. For example, the DC of running through ankle-deep water is one step higher than running on dry ground. Yet, running through neck-deep water is no longer a task that requires running; it requires swimming."

I'm interested in seeing your system in action.

Thanks! I'll be posting information about the game in the coming week or so.

[sparkletwist]

Or maybe that's not what you mean.

Not exactly. All I really was suggesting was a bit more clarification in the explanation of the rules, perhaps including an example of that specific principle in action-- not any change to your actual mechanics.

True, but since my primary goal of designing the system is to personally use it, this issue is nigh-moot. If I lack a decent level of common sense, a codified set of skills isn't going to significantly help my game be good. If I have said common sense (or enough of it), the benefit of creating/writing an exhaustive, mutually exclusive set of skills doesn't outweigh the cost of spending the time and energy to craft said list.

You'll be probably crafting the list anyway using "common sense," but you'll just be crafting it in a way that it exists primarily inside of your head and is based on quick rulings that may not be consistent with one another. Writing it all down gives you the benefit of being able to look it over at any time and players the benefit of being able to know it in advance-- and also gives you time to think things through and resolve conflicts and ambiguities outside of trying to do so at the game table. (Or in the IRC, or wherever you're playing!)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point

Look, I don't want to be one of those people who completely derails a thread and makes internet gaming forums a terrible place to be, but the inferiority of martial types to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder is basically a proven fact. So, I'm not going to concede this-- we can "agree to disagree" in the sense that I won't keep beating this drum, but that's all. I suspect your experiences are largely due to unoptimized casters, fighters getting cool abilities from feats and magical equipment, and the occasional bit of GM fiat helping the fighters out, because the math is pretty clear on this one. Other people have explained it far better than I could.

Between racial traits, flexible skill selection and advancement, dispositions, and foci, warriors can have a number of efficacious non-damaging and non-combat abilities.

Sure, but Theurges can have all of these things, too, because these are things that characters get, not things that Warriors specifically get.

So, dimensional travel and weather control are undeniably big-ticket, big-scale items, but they nearly all come at the end of advancement, and even then, aren't things that are done lightly or frequently.

This is not solely an endgame problem. At tier 2, a Theurge can survive in just about any environment for a short time or float over hazards. At tier 3, the Theurge can scry, create energy barriers. And so on. Meanwhile, as they improve, Warriors can... hit guys harder, or hit more of them, or do other combat things related to "hitting guys." The set of problems that a Warrior can solve does not increase significantly due to Warrior abilities, and this is the real imbalance. Sure, they can gain other abilities, but, as mentioned above, they gain them through avenues that are open to the Theurge, also. My point is solely that the benefits granted by being a Warrior archetype strike me as significantly less impressive than the ones granted by the Theurge archetype.

You haven't yet mentioned how you think rogues balance out against warriors and theurges, so I was/am hoping you might.

Rogues get some Warrior abilities which are often unimpressive and some Theurge abilities which are often awesome. So, I see them as being right in the middle.

I didn't reply to your other points because I stated my opinions and I stand by them, but they are minor critiques, so if your philosophies and opinions as to how you want to take your game are different, well... it's your game, so I encourage you to do what you want with it.

[LD]

"Certain tasks, due to either severely disadvantageous circumstances or extreme character disability, might have their difficulty raised by more than 2 steps or be outright impossible. For example, humans -barring witchcraft, technology, or similar intervention- cannot attempt tasks that involve flying. Alternatively, a clumsy person who has his hands horribly broken might have the DC of a simple task like tying a knot increased by more than 2 steps. In some cases, circumstances might be so severe that a GM rules that the task has become an altogether different activity. For example, the DC of running through ankle-deep water is one step higher than running on dry ground. Yet, running through neck-deep water is no longer a task that requires running; it requires swimming."

That works!

[Rose-of-Vellum]

Or maybe that's not what you mean.

Not exactly. All I really was suggesting was a bit more clarification in the explanation of the rules, perhaps including an example of that specific principle in action-- not any change to your actual mechanics.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll go through and see if which areas I can make clearer, and I will try and provide another example. I had hoped the examples of Belphora Needletongue and Shai-Qor served that purpose, but maybe they come too late or are too short?

You'll be probably crafting the list anyway using "common sense," but you'll just be crafting it in a way that it exists primarily inside of your head and is based on quick rulings that may not be consistent with one another. Writing it all down gives you the benefit of being able to look it over at any time and players the benefit of being able to know it in advance-- and also gives you time to think things through and resolve conflicts and ambiguities outside of trying to do so at the game table.

I think I'll give it a test run with a few new players; if they (or I) have notable confusion or contention about skills, I'll definitely make the time to try and finalize a core, but not exhaustive, set of skills.  

the inferiority of martial types to casters in 3.x and Pathfinder is basically a proven fact.

For 3.x, I agree that they were unbalanced, and that this imbalance was well established. For PF, neither is true, though many people mistakenly assume that the imbalance remains. The evidence actually demonstrates that martial types are more 'game-breaking'. As a decade-long member of Dicefreaks, I can assure you that this largely-held assertion, and the gameplay that confirms it, is not due to gaming with individuals who misunderstand optimization, game theory, or mechanics. But, I've seen this conversation played out ad nauseam, and it's tangental to Penumbra, so I'm content to agree to disagree.      

Between racial traits, flexible skill selection and advancement, dispositions, and foci, warriors can have a number of efficacious non-damaging and non-combat abilities.

Sure, but Theurges can have all of these things, too, because these are things that characters get, not things that Warriors specifically get.

True, but my comment was in response to your remark that warriors can only do one thing. Unlike other systems whose characters heavily, almost solely, rely upon their class for abilities, Penumbra provides several alternative sources of abilities. So, yes, warriors specialize in combat and surviving physical threats, but their other attributes provide other abilities/options. At the same time, I'm not contending that their archetype abilities are more focused than a rogue's or a theurge's. That's the trade-off between diversification and specialization.

I would, however, love to hear any suggestions for alternative/additional warrior abilities that might broaden their abilities while staying true to their flavor/archetype.  

My point is solely that the benefits granted by being a Warrior archetype strike me as significantly less impressive than the ones granted by the Theurge archetype.

Fair enough. Magic generally seems more impressive, but that perception is influenced by player preference. To some, Conan is more impressive than Elminster. Drizzt more than Thoth-Amon. For others, the opposite is the case.  

I didn't reply to your other points because I stated my opinions and I stand by them, but they are minor critiques, so if your philosophies and opinions as to how you want to take your game are different, well... it's your game, so I encourage you to do what you want with it.

All the same, I greatly appreciate you sharing your input. It's been very helpful.

That works!

Excellent, I'll add the blurb now.

[sparkletwist]

The evidence actually demonstrates that martial types are more 'game-breaking'.

Wait... what? This thread isn't the place for it, so I don't want to derail things further, but I'd be quite curious to see this evidence, somewhere else.

I would, however, love to hear any suggestions for alternative/additional warrior abilities that might broaden their abilities while staying true to their flavor/archetype.

Enduring various environments seems like it wouldn't be hard to fit into a Warrior archetype; they can survive because they're just that tough, and all that. Giving them some sort of powerful leap as a consequence of their sheer physical prowess can help them keep pace with a Theurge's ability to float around. Highlighting the resourcefulness that a Warrior would have to develop in order to survive can also help with giving them more general utility.

Magic generally seems more impressive, but that perception is influenced by player preference.

In this case, by "impressive," I meant specifically how the set of "things I can do" is expanding for the character. If the Warrior instead got the ability to leap and climb, spy on people from a distance, MacGyver up some gadgets, and do all kinds of other broadly useful tasks, while while the Theurge just got more powerful blasts that did more damage, my objection would be reversed-- regardless of who has "magic."

I greatly appreciate you sharing your input. It's been very helpful.

Good! I think it's cool that not only do you have a pretty developed system, it ties into someone else's setting-- it's the sort of mentality that we like to see around here. :D