The Campaign Builder's System?

[~Kalin~]

My vote is still for the class/template idea. It seems to be halfway between normal classes and this freeform business some of you are so fond of.

WE make everyone a bit annoyed, then we've done something right.

Ok then lets put this to a vote and settle this once and for all before we get any further, I suggest that anyone thats keeping an eye on this thread vote aswell, so do we want a classless/Talent system or a class/Template system? Also feel free to put the reasons why you prefer one system over the other.


EDIT: Updated votes.
Votes so far:
Classless/Talent System: 4
Class/Template System: 3

[Ra-Tiel]

My vote is on "classless/talent based".

<flamingSpeech>
We started discussion about this as an endeavor to come up with a better system than WotC. Therefore, we must let loose our imagination and fantasy, experiment with new rules, try out all the crazy stuff we'd never thought to use in a "normal" game. We could make an "alternative" system by using classes and levels, but would that really be a "better" system? It would still carry all the weaknesses and burdens standard d20 carries. How can we come up with a better system if we don't want to stray from the original too far?

A class/level based system does have its advantages, I'll readily admit that. It's easier for n00bs, makes creating highlevel NPCs easier, and the DM gets a general expression about the minimum abilities the party has (regarding HP, saves, attack bonuses, spell capacities, etc). However, it also has its weaknesses. Characters always look like as if build from LEGO bricks, advancement comes in irregular steps, power curves usually do not scale linearily (especially regarding casters), it shoehorns characters into certain stereotypes (all fighters are brutes, all wizards are smart, all rogues are sneaky, etc).

With the Campaign Builders' System we have now the unique chance to create a new system that is truely better than d20, even if it takes its very distant origin from that one. We can do away once and for all with all the horrible stuff (like the diplomacy rules) and create a homogenous, yet highly modular system that can easily be modified for each campaign without tearing the whole thing apart (unlike DnD).

All we have to do is throw away the restrictions of normal thinking and go crazy with ideas. Give in to your imagination, and let us truely triumph over WotC!
</flamingSpeech>

:D ;)

[Stargate525]

Rebuttal speech:

And with your proposed system, oh esteemed Ra-Tiel, characters look like a blob of goo, with no real purpose, driving mechanic, or motivation. There is such as thing as too much organicness. Without the class/template system, anyone who isn't an experienced roleplayer will have difficulty optimizing their character to any semblance of usefulness.

Furthermore, I believe the class/template system we have is a good balance between the two extremes. It is by no means a straight class system, and character built with it will look significantly different, but it has the rigidity that a good basis for a system needs.

I call bull on your speech. There's different because it's better, and different because you simply want to be different.

[Ra-Tiel]

Rebuttal speech:

And with your proposed system, oh esteemed Ra-Tiel, characters look like a blob of goo, with no real purpose, driving mechanic, or motivation. There is such as thing as too much organicness. Without the class/template system, anyone who isn't an experienced roleplayer will have difficulty optimizing their character to any semblance of usefulness.

So, all people playing Shadowrun, World of Darkness (and all derivates like Scion or Exalted), Blue Planet, or GURPS must always be experienced roleplayers? And in these systems it is impossible or difficult to create a useful character with purpose and motivation? :huh:

Furthermore, I believe the class/template system we have is a good balance between the two extremes. It is by no means a straight class system, and character built with it will look significantly different, but it has the rigidity that a good basis for a system needs.

My former idea was little more than UA's generic classes mixed with some sort of crunchy background mechanic. Basically not really different from what has been already done by WotC, thus we'd be only reinventing a broken wheel again.

I call bull on your speech. There's different because it's better, and different because you simply want to be different.

And there's "not being different" for the sake of "not being different". ;)

[LordVreeg]

I've been moe of an amused observer on this thread, but I have to vote with Ra, despite my respect for Stargate525 (the multitalented).  I consider a classless system that focusses on skill/talents a more flexible one and one that allows for more GM creativity.
I consider a skill based system where the list of skills available comes first, and what they do, and how fast they generally develop.
If the templates you speak of were very specific, and gave a list of skills that they teach (and how fast characters from that template gain profiency in that skill) that the character can work from, then that might assuage my feelings.

[Ra-Tiel]

I've been moe of an amused observer on this thread, but I have to vote with Ra, despite my respect for Stargate525 (the multitalented).  I consider a classless system that focusses on skill/talents a more flexible one and one that allows for more GM creativity.
I consider a skill based system where the list of skills available comes first, and what they do, and how fast they generally develop.

My main point pro skillbased mechanics is that it creates more homogeneous characters and less characters whose abilities come in LEGO style bricks and boxes. Also, imho it allows for a smoother storytelling on the DMs part, because it takes away some of the more illogical aspects of a levelbased system ("Ok, we've been following that death knight through the wilderness for 2 months now and finally took it down, now I have learned teleport without having seen a library or mage laboratory for almost a whole term.")

On a related note, I'd greatly appreciate getting rid of DnD's terrible skill descriptions and instead put a clean and simple system with general modifiers. Each skill having a table with modifiers for this and that, while completely neglecting other aspects of the skill just irks me in a thousand degrees. x. I'd suggest something similar to the write ups in WoD books, giving a general description of the skill, presenting some special options for using the skill, and giving examples what a certain number of ranks means in terms of proficiency (eg "0 ranks, 5 ranks, 10 ranks, 15 ranks, 20 ranks"). The modifiers (skill user distracted, surface slippery, distance, disadvantageous circumstances, etc) should be put in a single larger table for ease of reference.

If the templates you speak of were very specific, and gave a list of skills that they teach (and how fast characters from that template gain profiency in that skill) that the character can work from, then that might assuage my feelings.

Some pages ago I had the idea of using "templates" as a means to differ characters from different backgrounds from each other. Back then, I thought that each class would allow access to 3 to 5 general talent trees, and a template would offer access to 2 to 4 specific and thematically fitting talent trees. Templates could eg be "wild", "civilized", "psionic", "skilled", etc, representing the background and upbringing of a character. However, I rather quickly ran into several problems with this idea and thus - at least for now - dropped it. One point was that if each character only had a single template, he would be basically static. No matter how much time eg a barbarian (or "wild warrior") spent in a great city, he could just never adopt to a more civilized way of life. On the other hand, if you allowed templates to change, you'd have to deal with some sort of restricting mechanic to prevent a player to gain access to any and all talent trees with some clever multiclassing.

[Atlantis]

you know, maybe we are not thinking outside the box enough. maybe we could use both classes and classless? so for example in a party there could be a rogue and a magic user and a cleric. the magic user is simply a magic user. this way, you can specialize or just generalize so you could sort of have a tree where it goes: thief then bandit and pickpocket,etc. or you could just stay as a thief. but im not exactly sure how that is very different than multiclassing.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote_Magnificent Ra]Also, imho it allows for a smoother storytelling on the DMs part, because it takes away some of the more illogical aspects of a levelbased system ("Ok, we've been following that death knight through the wilderness for 2 months now and finally took it down, now I have learned teleport without having seen a library or mage laboratory for almost a whole term.")[/blockquote]


OK, Now you are talking my language.  But you meant 'classbased', not 'levelbased', correct?


I say this becasue one of my biggest reasons for going skillbased was exactly this.  Thieves becoming better at pickpocketting my killing people.  This is one of the three 'windmills' that made me crazy enough to change my whole system.
But my skillbased system still has levels.  We keep experience in each skill, and you only get experience in skills that are used.

[Ra-Tiel]

you know, maybe we are not thinking outside the box enough. maybe we could use both classes and classless? so for example in a party there could be a rogue and a magic user and a cleric. the magic user is simply a magic user. this way, you can specialize or just generalize so you could sort of have a tree where it goes: thief then bandit and pickpocket,etc. or you could just stay as a thief. but im not exactly sure how that is very different than multiclassing.

I don't think it is possible to come up with such a system. You would have to create two equivalent, yet highly different advancement mechanics catering both to leveled and levelless characters. I know there is MarauderX's XP point buy system, but something about the mechanic irks be as highly inelegant. It may be a good system, but it just doesn't cut it for me, there are imho too many issues (like a 3k XP character getting his ass handed to him by a normal level 2 character).

[Atlantis]

well, i was talking about class and generalized, not leveled and levelless.

[psychoticbarber]

Okay, I've read through the thread, and I'm not quite sure what's been decided on. I just ask so that I can build off what you've got, rather than try to redesign wheels you've already built.

Edit: Class/Template is a good compromise, though I don't particularly like the pure Class-based system. But I'm a huge Hero system (similar to GURPs) fan, so that oughta tell you what I really like ;).

[Higgs Boson]

My vote is for class/template system.
[blockquote Ra-Tiel]Basically not really different from what has been already done by WotC, thus we'd be only reinventing a broken wheel again.[/blockquote]
But this time, the broken wheel is equipped with oodles of laser auto-turrets.

[~Kalin~]

Okay, I've read through the thread, and I'm not quite sure what's been decided on. I just ask so that I can build off what you've got, rather than try to redesign wheels you've already built.

Edit: Class/Template is a good compromise, though I don't particularly like the pure Class-based system. But I'm a huge Hero system (similar to GURPs) fan, so that oughta tell you what I really like ;).

I pretty sure nothing has been decided on yet, although much has been discussed, the vote (top of page) will decide once and for all which character creation system we will be developing. And was what a vote for the class/Template system?

Also voting will close on Wednesday 19th, longer if it ties.

[psychoticbarber]

And was what a vote for the class/Template system?

It was indeed. I have read (almost) all of the thread, it's pretty funky. There are elements I like, though I'm not entirely sure about the proposed execution of them yet...ah well, you won't get rid of me now ;)

[Ra-Tiel]

It was indeed. I have read (almost) all of the thread, it's pretty funky. There are elements I like, though I'm not entirely sure about the proposed execution of them yet...ah well, you won't get rid of me now ;)

Well, there are several points unclear, at least from my perspective. ;)

(1) Class/Template vs Classless/Levelless
(2) Standard d20 skills vs condensed skills (similar to SW SAGA)
(3) 0-6/1-9/2-12 saves vs 1-11/2-17/4-23 saves (to reduce magic item dependency)
(4) How many talents should a talent tree encompass?
(5) Exponential power scaling vs linear power scaling?

To name a few.