Quick Play RPG System

[Nomadic]

@phoenix - probably cause I personally like letting players have a chance at an extra boost if they are willing to give up something else (to a limit... I'm not a huge fan of flaws outside of an RP standpoint).

@Llum - yup that's intended (for two reasons). While I don't yet have the full balance (I am thinking of changing it to 1d20-12) what I am doing here is setting it up so that as a weak spell there is a strong chance at only dealing a few damage. However there is also a chance that a lucky hit will do a bit more than is normal for that level. The other reason is that I am trying to make it so this game can be played with as few things as possible. I would love to be able to set up a game in a matter of minutes with someone who hasn't played this before with nothing more than the tiny rulebook, a d20, and a pencil and notepad. I am actually thinking of making this style of damage the norm for all attacks so that they average a certain damage range with the chance for really good rolls to do extra (think critical hits).

[Matt Larkin (author)]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you want the incremental cost of each attribute value to be higher than 1 to 1, which is understandable. You could still achieve this result on a lower attribute scale and/or one in which your attribute itself is the bonus it applies.

For that matter, you have level ups taking 1000 XP when the math would remain the same for 100 XP, with each XP representing a 1% increase towards level-gain.

I mention it only since one of your stated goals is simplicity.

Also, did you read Rael's old minimalist game thread? You might mine an idea or two from that if you haven't already.

Where you the one, a while back that proposed a system of all skills and no stats? A system with only stats or skills is obviously simpler than one with both.

[Nomadic]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you want the incremental cost of each attribute value to be higher than 1 to 1, which is understandable. You could still achieve this result on a lower attribute scale and/or one in which your attribute itself is the bonus it applies.

For that matter, you have level ups taking 1000 XP when the math would remain the same for 100 XP, with each XP representing a 1% increase towards level-gain.

I mention it only since one of your stated goals is simplicity.

Also, did you read Rael's old minimalist game thread? You might mine an idea or two from that if you haven't already.

Where you the one, a while back that proposed a system of all skills and no stats? A system with only stats or skills is obviously simpler than one with both.

I am not quite sure what you mean about a higher than 1:1 incremental cost. If you are talking about the point buy, no that is still 1:1. Otherwise I am unsure. Your argument for the 100 xp thing though is pretty convincing, will have to think about that. It would make measurement slightly easier. As for Rail's old thread, I don't recall reading it. Do you know where I could find it? And lastly, nope I think that was xeviat. I am actually someone who strongly believes in a need for both (stats and skills that is). In fact I think I detailed that in the thread you are mentioning.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Mastery was Raelifin's minimalist project.

@phoenix - probably cause I personally like letting players have a chance at an extra boost if they are willing to give up something else (to a limit... I'm not a huge fan of flaws outside of an RP standpoint).

as[/b] the stat.


That was my reasoning, anyway.

[Loch Belthadd]

I was serious. My players are NOOBs and D&D was too complicated for them, so this worked.

[Nomadic]

Mastery was Raelifin's minimalist project.

@phoenix - probably cause I personally like letting players have a chance at an extra boost if they are willing to give up something else (to a limit... I'm not a huge fan of flaws outside of an RP standpoint).

as[/b] the stat.


That was my reasoning, anyway.

Ok now I get what you are talking about. I am not so sure about it. However, it does have merit in simplifying things. I will toss it around in my head for a bit. Thanks.

[Llum]

I like the idea of not having dead level for stats, something that always nagged at me, but never really came to mind until phoenix mentioned it.

[snakefing]

It does depend a bit on who your target players are. Some people find negative numbers to be more of a turnoff than others. As Phoenix says, you can get pretty much the same results without negative numbers, if you set your "typical" score to be something above zero.

But where does this leave us in simplicity? Which one is simpler?

A) System where the "typical" roll has no modifiers, but may have either positive or negative modifiers; or

B) System where the "typical" roll has a +5 modifier, but the modifier might be either higher or lower, and the target numbers are correspondingly higher.

I don't think there is a single answer to this question. It will depend on the players, the dice rolling scheme it is being applied to, etc.

(BTW, I just don't see any advantage in avoiding negative numbers, then having to do subtraction using the target's attribute. Negative numbers and subtraction are the same thing. But maybe that's just me.)

---

On another topic, one way I've seen point buy caps implemented is a limit on (high - low) difference. That is, the difference between the points spent in your highest category minus your lowest category is capped.

For example, if the cap on the difference is 6, then if your lowest stat is -3, none of your other stats could be higher than +3. Depending how stringent your cap is, you can allow quite a bit of variability while still eliminating the most egregious min/max combinations.

The down side is that such a cap seems kind of arbitrary and artificial. But any kind of point buy has a certain arbitrariness to it; so maybe that's not such a big deal.

[snakefing]

Also, I have a question on the Abilities section.

Is the idea that players can come up with their own abilities, based on a character concept? Or would there be a set of defined abilities? (Or something in between - some well-defined ones for non-intuitive things like magic psi?)

[Nomadic]

On another topic, one way I've seen point buy caps implemented is a limit on (high - low) difference. That is, the difference between the points spent in your highest category minus your lowest category is capped.

For example, if the cap on the difference is 6, then if your lowest stat is -3, none of your other stats could be higher than +3. Depending how stringent your cap is, you can allow quite a bit of variability while still eliminating the most egregious min/max combinations.

The down side is that such a cap seems kind of arbitrary and artificial. But any kind of point buy has a certain arbitrariness to it; so maybe that's not such a big deal.

Also, I have a question on the Abilities section.

Is the idea that players can come up with their own abilities, based on a character concept? Or would there be a set of defined abilities? (Or something in between - some well-defined ones for non-intuitive things like magic psi?)
[/quote]

Well like all good systems this is of course just a base. Any DM is free to add and remove things as they choose. In regards to how I will be testing it (I have a few players interested) I will indeed allow that stuff. Part of that reason is how I function, but the other is that as a new system in testing it needs to be malleable in order to fix issues. So to be honest it is probably somewhere in between. The core rules plus the modules they are using making a stable platform and allowing the players to add in their own stuff.

[Loch Belthadd]

One of my friends who GMs made a very simple system where there were 5 attributes and you got 12 points that you could spread between them. to do something you would roll d20 and add your score. when you leveled up you got 3 more points. It was a Pseudo-real world ,so there wasn't any magic...

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=His Nomadic Majesty]Well like all good systems this is of course just a base. Any DM is free to add and remove things as they choose. In regards to how I will be testing it (I have a few players interested) I will indeed allow that stuff. Part of that reason is how I function, but the other is that as a new system in testing it needs to be malleable in order to fix issues. So to be honest it is probably somewhere in between. The core rules plus the modules they are using making a stable platform and allowing the players to add in their own stuff. [/blockquote]
I think creating a template for creating skills and guidelines for same, with a few basic ideas, makes for a much more mutable game for people, even in terms of letting the GM choose game balance.  Which is, as I know you, what you want.

[Nomadic]

Woo boy I have let this thing sit for awhile. Time to crack her back open.

[blockquote=His Nomadic Majesty]Well like all good systems this is of course just a base. Any DM is free to add and remove things as they choose. In regards to how I will be testing it (I have a few players interested) I will indeed allow that stuff. Part of that reason is how I function, but the other is that as a new system in testing it needs to be malleable in order to fix issues. So to be honest it is probably somewhere in between. The core rules plus the modules they are using making a stable platform and allowing the players to add in their own stuff. [/blockquote]
I think creating a template for creating skills and guidelines for same, with a few basic ideas, makes for a much more mutable game for people, even in terms of letting the GM choose game balance.  Which is, as I know you, what you want.

Most definitely. I have always been a stickler for modularity in game systems. The DM and PCs should be able to shift things around with destroying the system (or their brains trying to figure out how to do it). Anyhow the system is sliding together nicely (and at loch, your friends system is intriguing and a bit similar to what I want). I think the hardest part is designing the lists. The hard crunch is mostly worked out (though I am still open to other ideas on optimization) and now it is time for the tedious task of coming up with spell and ability ideas. I think a base list will be fine and I can add more as my testers point out their ideas. Even that though is hard work. Thanks again to everyone (grab a badge for piping in if you haven't). I think I might start putting up spell and attribute ideas to get feedback on them here soon.

[Ninja D!]

It has taken me far too long to finally come back to this thread.  For that, I am sorry.  But now I am here and here I go.

Attributes
1. I like that you only have four attributes.  I think that is the key to making a system easy and simple.  

2. I was wondering why you decided that 44 for was the right number of points to be assigned to attributes?  Is it this so if a player decides to make all of the attributes even, they will get no bonuses?

3. I see that characters gain points for attributes at every level.  If you were to play this very far, that would likely result in attributes becoming very high, very fast.  Is this the intent?  If so, that's fine.  Or maybe this system is not intended to be played far.  Maybe not at all beyond a one-shot or something like that?  If not, does it cost more to raise attributes beyond a certain point?  Also, will the mechanics always be focused on the attributes?

Social Interaction
I like that you keep this aspect simple. This kind of thing could easily grow very complex but keeping it focused on role playing with maybe a single die roll is great.  I wonder, though, how well would this work if an NPC tried to influence a PC in this way?  

Skills
1. Your way of handling skills in this system is simple and to the point.  I like that and it really keeps with the spirit and intent of the system.  I have one thought for you to consider here, though.  If you intend to make this system so that  people other than yourself may use it, you may want to include some idea of how many "trained" skills would be normal or how many skills would be normal.  Nothing solid, just more of an idea than you have given here.  Or, you may not want to do that.

2. Do skills have governing attributes that also make them better or worse?  Most systems include something like that and to me it makes sense.  Or, maybe, have you left that out for the sake of simplicity?

Abilities
I like this.  You keep it very simple here, which I understand is your intent.  If you want to expand this, though, including more possible abilities would be a good idea.  It seems to me that you have this set up so a player can easily learn it but there would have to be a lot of work done by the GM in advance for this game to be anything.

Combat Encounters[/u]
1. You keep this simple and easy.  I like the use of many different attribute modifiers for many different things.  This is where it is most clear that this system is based loosely on D&D.  At least to me.

2. Now I find myself wondering where the intellect modifier comes into play, if not here at all.

3.I think it is good that you allow for experience to be gained even through defeat.  This is very different from combat-centric D&D and I think it is better.  RPGs should not be strictly about fighting.  However, wouldn't a defeat often mean death anyway?

Leveling Up
I'm glad that you keep experience and leveling so simple, unlike most systems.

Magic
1. Finally intellect shows up.  Will magic be the only purpose of intellect in this system?

2. Spells are another thing that you would need more examples of if you were to make this work.  If you're including magic in this system there will have to be additional parts to it beyond the basic quick play aspect, I'm afraid.

3. A character only gains spells if they have the Tap Aether ability.  So this is not retro active at all?  If a level 20 character gains that ability, do they still know only two spells?


And that looks like everything.  You have a very strong start here.  Really, it is the core of a solid quick play system.  All you seem to really need is more examples.  

EDIT : Maybe you could run a play by post game of this here to give people a better feel for it?  From that you could also take an example leveling up procedure and example combat encounter and maybe an example social interaction?  They could be a kind of 'Part Two' thing if people still have questions after reading what you have posted here.

[Nomadic]

Attributes
1. I like that you only have four attributes.  I think that is the key to making a system easy and simple.

2. I was wondering why you decided that 44 for was the right number of points to be assigned to attributes?  Is it this so if a player decides to make all of the attributes even, they will get no bonuses?

3. I see that characters gain points for attributes at every level.  If you were to play this very far, that would likely result in attributes becoming very high, very fast.  Is this the intent?  If so, that's fine.  Or maybe this system is not intended to be played far.  Maybe not at all beyond a one-shot or something like that?  If not, does it cost more to raise attributes beyond a certain point?  Also, will the mechanics always be focused on the attributes?

Skills
1. Your way of handling skills in this system is simple and to the point.  I like that and it really keeps with the spirit and intent of the system.  I have one thought for you to consider here, though.  If you intend to make this system so that  people other than yourself may use it, you may want to include some idea of how many "trained" skills would be normal or how many skills would be normal.  Nothing solid, just more of an idea than you have given here.  Or, you may not want to do that.

2. Do skills have governing attributes that also make them better or worse?  Most systems include something like that and to me it makes sense.  Or, maybe, have you left that out for the sake of simplicity?
[/quote]
Combat Encounters[/u]
1. You keep this simple and easy.  I like the use of many different attribute modifiers for many different things.  This is where it is most clear that this system is based loosely on D&D.  At least to me.

2. Now I find myself wondering where the intellect modifier comes into play, if not here at all.

3.I think it is good that you allow for experience to be gained even through defeat.  This is very different from combat-centric D&D and I think it is better.  RPGs should not be strictly about fighting.  However, wouldn't a defeat often mean death anyway?
[/quote]
Magic
1. Finally intellect shows up.  Will magic be the only purpose of intellect in this system?

2. Spells are another thing that you would need more examples of if you were to make this work.  If you're including magic in this system there will have to be additional parts to it beyond the basic quick play aspect, I'm afraid.

3. A character only gains spells if they have the Tap Aether ability.  So this is not retro active at all?  If a level 20 character gains that ability, do they still know only two spells?
[/quote][/url]