One Roll Engine (ORE)

Have you read up on ORE? I provides two statistics in a single roll (*Tuple magnitude and numeric magnitude. Needs a chart on how many success you can expect, given X dice, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Roll_Engine

Hit Locations and Called Shot Criticals

Keith J Davies 

.... hit locations instead of straight random multiplier for damage, and armor coverage

Matt Miller

Hit locations are always a tempting location, but it certainly adds complexity. You roll to hit, roll for hit location, then roll for damage. It adds a fair bit of complexity, because different locations then have different armor values. The bad ones go like this: Attack, Roll for Location, Lookup Location, Lookup AC, Roll for Hit, Roll for damage, Add damage multiplers.

The Skill and Powers 'Called Shot Criticals' did it better, where you chose a location, with harder to hit locations getting a penalty to attack. Then you rolled severity, (based on weapon size) and then got a damage multiplier, and some extra effects. For example, a called shot critical to the head was at -8, but a severity of 10 could mean instant death. Rob ran a campaign where villains kept forgetting their helmets, so a character if AC -5 had a head with an AC 10 (effective AC 2), meaning several significant enemies were one-shotted by being beheaded. It was glorious!...One of the things that people really like is being able to say "I am a cut at his head". Yet the CSC penalty to hit made sure it wasn't something you wanted to do all the time

In fairness, they were supposed to fail a saving throw vs. death as defense against a critical, but we frequently neglected that rule, because it was so much fun. Were it mine to design again, I'd do it like this: Choose a location, with different locations getting a bonus to AC. And then different locations have a different damage dice, damage multiplier, or bonus damage attached.

Keith J Davies 

DnD 3e also had percentage checks for things where character ability and circumstance (mostly) didn't change things. For instance, miss chance due to concealment (20%/50%... unless you had a feat or something that changed it; BAB and high ability scores didn't improve it). Still almost always in steps of 5%, but the percentile roll meant you don't add modifiers.

Matt Miller

The cover/concealment thing was weird, but I think they included that for reasons of spells. A +10 to AC is not the same as a 50% miss chance, which stacks with AC and makes it harder. The sequential filter is nice, as it makes concealment hurt both the characters with low and high BAB equally

Keith J Davies 

I'd say the two rules interact, rather than 'stack'.... If they stacked, though, it should be 0% chance to hit.... The net effect is similar (decreased chance of being hit), but it's not the same thing (there are attacks that ignore AC but not concealment...)

Dnd Complexity Over Time

Matt Miller

• DnD was most complicated  at 2E (AD&D), where there were different mechanics for: attacks, profiencies, saving throws, thief skills, cleric abilities, spells, ranger abililities, fighter extraordinary strength, fighter weapon specialization: Every class basically had a unique mechanic. XP also varied by class, making multi and dual classing a pain. 

• Dnd 3.0 really cut down on that, converting almost everything to one of two mechanics: d20 (Attacks, saves, thief skills, cleric turning) or to feats (ranger abilities, weapon specialization). Only spells remained outside that context. XP per class was standardized.

• Numinara, Monte Cook's take on an advancement from 3E, went simpler, with a single mechanic to manage everything. Strangely, I really don't like it for just that reason--the game has no 'depth'. Once you've mastered the up-front complexity, there isn't anything new to try--just things to optimize 

• 4th was an attempt to implement World of Warcraft as a table-top game. My recollection is that it implemented everything as 'powers' with per day, per session, and per encounter frequency. Powers were also active, passive, conditional, and triggered. Powers were packaged as part of abilities. Spells were still distinct, but there was extensive use of meta-magic powers to alter spells. Character creation seemed to be a bit of a hassle. 

On reflection, the complication of DnD 2.0 was  actually a good thing. There was more game to play, as every class had a special set of mechanics you could explore. It did make dual-classing or multi-classing a pain.

TIERS OF CRUNCH

Matt Miller

How many rolls, calculations, and look-ups does it take to resolve an normal action? 

(And thus how long does a 'round' of battle take?)

~~~~~~~~~~~TIER 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dangerous Journeys
Phoenix Command
Mythus (?)
~~~~~~~~~~~TIER 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rolemaster
Powers& Perils
ShadowRun (FASA)
GURPS 3E(?)
HERO?
Warhammer(?)
~~~~~~~~~~~TIER 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GURPS 4e
ShadowRun 4th Edition
DND 4e
D&D 5e
Warhammer 40K 6E
Mayhem
DnD: Skills and Powers
DnD 4E
GURPS 4E
Pathfinder
DnD 3.5
DnD 5E
DnD, Advanced (2E)
Savage Worlds
DnD 1E
~~~~~~~~~~~TIER 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fate: Dresden Files
One-Roll Engine (?)
D6
HARP
Rules Cyclopedia D&D
Tunnels and Trolls
~~~~~~~~~~~TIER 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FUDGE/Fate
Numinara?
Tri-Stat
Amber Diceless (?)

Owen Wylde

it depends on how much realism/believability we want. The old "initiative, hit, damage, see if still standing" suits some, but others want to work out tactics, work out ranges, add obscure modifiers from books out of print and from obscure web references, check out and interpret effect of actions, use various moves, then attack, work out effect, minus defences, etc.

Dalton Calford 

....some systems can be EXTREMELY CRUNCHY while also being able to be VERY ABSTRACT.For example, Tunnels and Trolls. You can have character by character detailed combat with strategic rolls for manoeuvring, special abilities, ranged and magical combat, or, you can fight out a battle between a million foes to a side with a single die roll, all using the same mechanics......Traveller, over the years, has been comprised of many mini-games that come together into a single system. Even Character generation with it's character death element, becomes a separate standalone game. World development or ship design became as important to the overall gaming experience as actual rpg game play. Gurps, on the other hand, which gives you all the same detail, does not seem to spur on the imagination as much as traveller does. In many ways, producing the exact same material with Gurps as Traveller, is considered a chore instead of fun. 

Encounter Manual

Matt Miller

In DnD, most XP comes from defeating monsters in combat. Making combat the main source of XP may not have been intended. But good tables on appropriate amounts of XP are available for combat, and none for other types of encounters. People respond to incentives. This suggests we need charts for different types of encounters-- a 'monster manual' for non-combat encounters, that includes appropriate XP.

Rob Hicks

I've never used wandering monster charts. I prefer to use lists that are based on environment, or theme them for the dungeon. Random encounters are done better through video games and don't tell much of a story....I bet fourth has charts out there, but if not, you could use 3e or pathfinder charts easily enough. 

Nathan Dowdell

Functionally, random encounters are a part of a different style of play than 4e supports. 4e encounters are very much of the "set piece action movie" style, which makes random, spontaneous conflicts difficult to deal with (the best 4e encounters are ones the GM has had time to plan and prepare, with interesting environments and challenging opponents).

Ed Vaughan 

Wandering monster charts work well in 4e, assuming you aren't hand-waving exploration. Often 4e adventures assume you walk to the next dungeon or room of guys without incident, and as a result the dungeons can feel small, pre-generated and mechanical. The other thing that's different about 4e adventures is that encounters are usually balanced around the party, where random encounter tables usually don't cater towards any particular level PC.  

Ken St. Andre 

There is no reason not to build Wandering Monster charts based on environment. A dungeon is a pretty generic environment--you can put almost anything inside it. A swamp or a forest offers a diverse habitat where dozens of creatures/foes could appear.

Ed Vaughan

Making a wandering monster table is really easy... Just pick any number of your favorite monsters and make a table out of it...then, decide how frequently they will occur... 5th edition uses 17-20 on a d20. Older D&D versions used a roll of 1 on a d10, or a roll of 1 in 6. Frequency is all up to you -- the more frequent monsters appear, the more difficult things are for the party.

Nathan Dowdell

Random encounters really have their origin - and find their purpose most strongly - in the earliest versions of D&D, back when you got XP equal to gold recovered, rather than getting XP for monsters killed. By focussing all reward on treasure, the idea of avoiding encounters (because encounters could mean casualties, which lessens your ability to succeed) through stealth, guile, diplomacy, or deception becomes important. Encumbrance also matters here - the more you carry, the slower you travel, and the more chance of random encounters... which are a risk, rather than another source of XP, but the less you carry, the less XP you get at the end. In that context, XP-for-Gold, Encumbrance, and Random Encounters are three parts of a mechanical construct that encourages cunning over brute force, and self-preservation over battlefield glory.
In that context, XP-for-Gold, Encumbrance, and Random Encounters are three parts of a mechanical construct that encourages cunning over brute force, and self-preservation over battlefield glory.
Random encounters serve less of a purpose outside of that context, becoming more an element of worldbuilding for sandbox-style play (with different tables for different environments) instead of a hazard to force logistical considerations. 

Ed Vaughan

If a player's expectation is similar to an adventure like Dungeon Delve, or Keep on the Shadowfell, they may not have any experience with exploration and resource management. The hardest part will be introducing the game style to the players -- that the PCs move only their speed per round, and have to cover the space between before they get to those labeled encounter areas. The longer they dawdle the more potential for random monsters there are.

Paul Goldstone 

I always felt wandering monsters were more work. 'Where did they come from?', players trying to track them to origin, just added a lot of faff.....However if you are playing a free form travelling with no purpose type game...there are millions of tables from all the editions. 

Matt Miller 

For outside environments, when players are 'on the road', wandering encounters make more sense. But you can't do the same time/space compaction in a dungeon...so you have to generate tension through spot checks and perception.

Mission/Goal based Role Playing

Cory Magel 

The group I play with most regularly moved to mission/goal based exp.....

Matt Miller

The idea of a 'mission' supports the metaphor of role-playing as 'squad tactical combat', with declared objectives. Thematically, I find that troubling. Admittedly, most Tolkien-descended fantasy (Shannara, Eddings, Goodkind, Jordan) has a 'magical stranger' as 'quest giver'. But Moorcock descended fantasy does not. Iunno. Maybe this is what attract me to FATE and dresden files, which sets up character relationships?

Awarding XP

Matt Miller

Hearsay has it than in early DnD, treasure was the goal, as (originally) players could translate gold into XP.  Over time, this switched so that  most XP came from defeating enemies in combat. I don't think the intent was to make combat the main source of XP, but good tables on appropriate amounts of XP are available for combat, but none for other types of encounters. People respond to incentives.

Dan Felder

This is why all my systems and campaigns in other systems always shift things to have XP awarded for accomplishing goals. Combat inherently provides nothing, but you can use it as a way to achieve a goal. 

Keith J Davies 

Indeed. Reward the behavior you want to see. If it's 'kill everything', give XP for killing stuff. If you want to see 'cunningly recover..treasure', leave combat out of the XP calculation because it's only an obstacle, and reward 'recover...treasure'.

Owen Wylde 

I interpreted "gold to XP" to mean paying for training. Some of my DMs only allowed levelling up after gaining enough XP then paying for training. 

Alexander Staniforth

The difficulty with it was that gold is reward in itself as it allows you access to rare goods etc. So in getting gold you are rewarded twice. I prefer pure accomplishment and GM decision (with a smattering of group decision should everyone be impressed).

Cory Magel 

The group I play with most regularly moved to mission/goal based exp. ....it removes the need for tracking and encourages a team effort. I, personally, will just tell the group when to level. So long as everyone is happy with the pace and progress it lets you slow and speed up the pace of the campaign as desired.

 Nathan Dowdell 

....there are a number of systems that handle character growth in different ways - Fate uses milestones in the story to govern changes to characters, while Smallville (Cortex Plus Drama) based character development on stress and challenging personal beliefs, so that characters suffer dramatically in order to grow.

Clustering Abilities

Rob Hicks

 If I were to do <Mayhem> again, I would have packaged them much differently. Instead of hundreds of minor tricks and abilities, I would have grouped them together in <clusters>. Maybe 4-5 sets of pyromancy  abilities instead of 30-40 spells...but granted more flexibility in what those can do. A player who learns a basic flame spell can also throw a rudimentary fireball, and can also extinguish a fire, without picking 3 different abilities. That way there is more flexibility in what an ability can do, and more creativity in application, and less time selecting and browsing very specific spells.

..Another example might be a fencer...<the>.. ability would teach them how to do a lunge, feint and let them use AGI instead of STR, instead of breaking those into interdependent feats or abilities. An advanced fencer ability might include more tricks and tactics <as another cluster>..

..Some of the best moments that we've seen in our games is when players learn flexible interpretation of the rules, and excitedly ask the GM: "Can I try this?!?" When the answer is. "Absolutely! Throw the dice and find out!" Then the result is both creativity, suspense and excitement, which are the best results I think we can get.....This approach would also let players explore new applications of their current skills, rather than waiting to point-buy new ones...

...Another side-effect of this approach is the chance for players to explore the -kinds- of things that their character can do, and learn about it as they go, rather than trying to agonize over every point spent....Makes for a point system that counts in the 10's instead of the 100's.

Option Shock

There is a tension between the number of alternatives available, and the amount of a time it takes to choose between them. With two many 'option shock' results, and players are paralyzed by choice.

How to structure abilities sequences?

Matt Miller

The most basic type is a linear sequential: Go up a level, get the next ability in line. Second most basic is a tiered list: New level-->pick from a list; some options have requisites. The third type would be a 'tree' or 'lattice', with dependencies clearly laid out. A fully developed lattice leads to something like the FF square grid, which has graphically displayed dependencies, and branching options. It's really cool, but a PAIN to create. Fifth option would be a currency system, which is simple to create, but painful to balance.  

Rob Hicks

the FF-style ability grids were tasty, but there are board game equivalents that do this well. Several very heavy euro/civ/4x style board games use player boards that create ability trees and such as you play through the game. 

Matt Miller

There are issues with both representing and tracking that much complexity in a non-electronic format. It could be done, but not easily. Is is so much better done in an electronic format that doing it in in a table-top format is foolish?

Levels for table-top Games

Matt Miller

The JRPG style of 'progression' in RPG's is now largely limited to electronic gaming, where software facilitates the tracking of attributes and ability dependencies. DnD 4E clearly illustrated the dangers of attempting to mimic that. Nobody goes up to lvl 100 for a reason. Arguably, 20 levels may be too many--OD&D only had 14, Dresden Files had (effectively) four. To a certain extent, its a matter of how long you expect to play, and how long it will take you to get bored of playing the same character. In Mayhem, we used 20 tiers (the power of defaults), which I regret.

Rob Hicks

...As far as levels, the game was designed to be functional in the 1-10 range predominantly, and progressed in ranks much more quickly than dnd did....We could have gone 1-10 and been just as effective....it would have made feedback charts easier to manage. 

ON BONUS SIZING

Matt Miller

More stuff per level helps; a new ability changes how you play the character, while a +1 makes a minor difference; a statistically significant different, but not a perceptible difference. (Using odds ratio rule, of 4:4 vs 5:4, the actual perceptible difference is just over 5.555%, so players won't actually NOTICE the effects of a +1, on a 1d20, even if they know it intellectually). This suggests that we should package abilities in a way they are equivalent to a +2 bonus.

Rob Hicks

...In Mayhem all of the ability bonuses were mostly set up in +2 and +4 increments....our dice mechanics we focused on 1-12 for most common result, with the upper range of 13-16 being super-extreme and outside of human limits. I MUCH prefer the d12 to the d20 for standard rolls.

Matt Miller

+2/+4: +2 is suitable for a d20. On a d12, even a +1 is perceptable, changing the odds ratio by about ~8%. On a d4, a +1 shifts it 25%.....At some point, I need to make a blog about the balance between fixed effect and random variation in rolls.

Dungeon Masters Guild

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dungeon-masters-guild-now-open

Weapon Range and Initiative

Matt Miller

Any thoughts on how to deal with weapon range in terms of initiative? Or weapon speed? In Mayhem, weapons had speed, that determined who went next, but it became more of an APR (attacks per round) thing than a 'swinging my hammer leaves me vulnerable' sort of thing. It's a knotty problem, as issues of range, timing, and and counter-attack are all bundled together.

Rob Hicks

The reality of a concept and the concept of the reality are very rarely the same thing....The reality of the spear is a super cheap and very effective way to arm cheap infantry with minimal training. The archetype is of a ranged attack for flashy wushu spins and thrusts. The latter is way more interesting, especially from a roleplaying perspective.... From that perspective, the relationship between range and speed is ... thematically irrelevant. The audience is much bigger for flashy maneuvers than hard realism.

Keith J Davies

...there is remarkably little difference between "weapon speeds" outside certain specific circumstances. You run into physiological limitations before weapon mass limitations.

Matt Miller

That's part of what I want to get at--that a lunge takes longer and leaves you more vulnerable. That and the physiological limitations of using a great axe, vs. using a hand axe. To me, this suggests a system where an action takes time (with the attack speed difference for most weapons being small), an initiative system where you character is 'off their guard' until their initiative count, and ties on initiative counts broken by a weapon reach. And perhaps a 2-weapon rule that says "You can't parry with a weapon you attacked with on your last action". ...I'm designing a simulation that treats every attack swing as a role of the dice.  People often treat a DnD attack as a single swing, so working with that metaphor.

Keith J Davies 

....whoever has won initiative controls the distance. [W]hen closing, bigger weapons get a bonus). If both fighters have the same reach they have no weapon-based modifier, otherwise for each step of reach difference you take a penalty. Dagger vs longsword, advantage is to the longsword initially because of longer reach. Dagger takes a penalty until he wins initiative, at which point he controls distance and stabstabstab... until longsword wins again. (This is part of why two weapon fighters use mismatched weapons, you have advantage in two reach categories)

Paul Goldstone

Runequest dealt with this utilising the Strike Rank system. This was based on the persons Size and Dexterity (character stats) and then modified by the weapon.
Longer weapons having a lower Strike Rank, so a tall and nimble person using a longsword would go before a short and nimble person. In situation of confined space or really close combat the weapons would have a Strike Rank modifier... For missile/thrown weapons, the Size aspect of the Strike Rank was dismissed. This system allowed ...diversity in weapons 

Keith Gatchalian 

...speed of the weapon is less an issue than reach.....from the time the two fighters engage, they are trading blows, parrying, making ripostes etc. The dice roll represents whether any of those blows or counterattacks make it through to cause damage. 

This is one of the weaknesses of the DnD system, that you only get to swing on your turn, even though you may have been fighting the whole turn. ...In a DnD combat, a fighter can engage someone, attack, then take a 5 foot step and then <have> someone else fill the space..... the defender never gets to "swing" back, even though as I point out, the combat is a series of blows, parrys and counterattacks. 

It does make sense for there to be a reach system, because a longer weapon, even if it is slower, will enable the fighter to strike first, as the other combatant maneuvers to get close enough to hit. ....there's no way a daggerman would ever strike before the two handed swordsman got a swing.......as a gamer, even in a fantasy game, you still have to ground the game in real world ...or the game becomes silly).

Paul Goldstone

In game terms a Size 18 Dexterity 20 warrior with a dagger would be quicker than a Size 10, Dexterity 10 warrior with a 2 handed sword .....The only conceivable way that the <dagger-user> went first was if...the wielder was significantly bigger, and exceedingly dexterous.

Rob Hicks

On a hexmap or a grid, how far would you...granulate reach? [C]ategorize it as some kind of initiative stat on the weapon? With Mayhem, we had effectively 3 ranges. 1, 2, and 3.... Is that enough to break ties? Is <granulated reach> worth creating an additional initiative stat? Could the <weapon stat> be used as tie-breakers for matched initiative? Are you comfortable with bows always going first? 

Matt Miller

 I'd actually give bows initiative proportional to their range, for simplicity in breaking ties. If you can't gack the archer before the start of the next tick, you get an arrow to the face. Readied attack goes first, then resolve by weapon range/reach. No 'attacks of opportunity', although the greater reach of weapons provides an opportunity to get the before they get you.

Rob Hicks

...it just doesn't jive with my mental heuristics of how speed and range work....I don't see being worth the application of range as initiative.

Matt Miller

I'll presume that you mental heuristic is that larger weapons are slower to swing, and so should not have as good an initiative as smaller ones. That seems...reasonable for clubs and whatnot, but not for spears. 2 handed weapons in general are kind of ticklish, as are pole-arms, which are both spear/axe and staff.

Keith J Davies 

I have to disagree that bigger means slower, and blunt means slower. _Imbalanced_ weapons are awkward, I could see making exceptions for mauls and the like, but that's because of the imbalance, not the size or bluntness. Quarterstaves go _fast_, man. As do greatswords when properly applied. The mechanical advantage from two hands properly placed makes up for a _lot_ of mass differences.....ith greatswords it wasn't uncommon to hold the blade and beat someone about the head with the 'handle'. The weapon is as much a steel spear as it as a 'sword' 

Multi-mode weapon, still two-handed (hits hard) and in proficient hands 'speed' is largely limited by muscular speed. Life becomes so much easier when you base initiative advantages on who has the advantage of reach. Sometimes daggers are faster, sometimes halberds. If I have a polearm you don't even get to attack me with a dagger unless you ....close with me 

For melee I based it on immediate range (small weapons like daggers, you have to close with your opponent; in a square- or hex-based map like D&D 3.x you're "in the same square"). 'Normal melee weapons' are melee range, which covers everything that isn't immediate range or reach. Long weapons like pikes (and greatswords and other polearms if you know how) have 'reach' and go one unit farther. Whips...consider them 'double reach' and usable only at reach and double reach, useless in melee. 

(and yes, I have 'weapon tricks' -- something like D&D feats -- that let someone overcome these difficulties. I was convinced by a martial artist I know who demonstrated he could hit my body with a (practice) sword while I had a grip on his <shirt>, without moving us apart. "Okay, a 'close combat style' will let you do this", said I).

Robert J. Grady

I know, with simulated weapons, the spear usually gets one get shot against a greatsword fighter. But then the greatsword fighter is inside, and gets a good shot. After that, it comes down to footwork. Dagger vs. sword is more straightforward because they are often used in similar ways; usually reach is an advantage, to a (ahem) point. The epee was designed to optimize reach, but then smallswords came along and changed the game by going smaller and faster again. One thing RPGs often mess up is that, other things being equal, a two-handed weapon is less nimble than a one-handed one, but is FASTER and MORE ACCURATE. Rapier v. katana, the rapier guy is going to look for a vulnerable angle of attack, while the katana is going to look for the right opening and hit fast and hard.

Keith J Davies 

Note that the 'less nimble' is _not_ because of _weight_, it's because you keep both hands on the weapon. This greatly limits the weapon's 'nimbleness'. 

13th Age-style icons

Keith J Davies

I'm devising an example set of 13th Age-style icons as might be used in a sandbox setting....I tried to put an overview of icons and what they are in this post, along with why I think they fit....13th Age ties a lot to the icons. The bestiary links the monsters to icons, I think all the significant (i.e. bigger than potions of healing) magic items have links to icons, and so on.... I don't know that I'd use them that pervasively, but the idea fits the idea of "shadowy figures with their fingers in the major events of the age". 

I'm looking for twenty campaign elements or themes to combine to create the icons. What are twenty things that you might find to be worth making the foci of a campaign setting?

Matt Miller 

Presuming you want binaries for opposed sides of your jewel...

•  Life death, 
• good evil, 
• order chaos, 
• self group, 
• old young, 
• intuitive logical, 
• mind body, 
• nature civilization, 
• future past, 
• innovative traditional, 
• cold hot, 
• wet dry, 
• earth sky, 
• land sea, 
• dark light,
• night day, 
• fecundity sterility (farm vs desert),
• war peace, 
• farming herding, raiding or trading, 
• foreign local (travel vs domesticity),
•  trickery sincerity, 
• justice-- mercy, 
• Heroic vs villainous, 
• Virtue and vice, 
• self interest vs altruism, 
• honor and desire, 
• equality hierarchy... 
• Freedom slavery, 
• liberty tyranny 

Keith J Davies
I ended up drafting a list and rolling with it, and ended up with...

Keith J Davies.....Draft List

it wants some more work -- flesh out the individual icons, figure out how to interpret the elements and themes (does Nature's Heart fight the Giant King because she wants to stop him from fulfilling a prophecy? Or is she trying to support him, to disrupt the curse he thinks is foretold to doom them both?), identify the relationships between the various icons and the agendas of each -- but it's coming along quite nicely. These would be the shadowy figures behind the scenes that have their fingers in the intrigues and scenarios the PCs get involved in.

Spellcraft check vs spell DC

Matt Miller

There are thematic, societally, and mechanical ideas behind it. Thematically, it's based on the idea that magic is a skill that anyone can master--It's just freaking difficult, with a brutal learning curve. Like learning to program using manuals written in Farsi, and translated into Dutch, then English. Societally, it's a way to explain why Wizards spend so much time studying, and why most people can't do magic. Mechanically, every spells just has a DC to cast, and you roll spellpower to manage it. No limit on spells per day, although limits to a) spells known and b) spells prepared. A spell stays 'memorized' until you botch it. But magic is like playing piano while deaf. If the spell does not take effect, you know you botched it, but aren't sure how, and can't re-attempt the spell until you've had a chance to study.

Keith Gatchalian

That's how I'm using magic in my rules. I always thought, as a magic user in DnD, how boring and undramatic it was using a spell. I announce the casting, then maybe roll for damage, but the real dice rolling is done by the DM making a save.

.....For my game,(using DnD terms) I use Knowledge Arcana ranks to = number of spells known(ranks is used as caster level), Spellcraft to actually cast the spell, and then I use an arbitrary stat ( like Str, Con etc) Magic Power to indicate the upper level of spells castable. So if you have an 18 (+4) Magic Power, you can cast upto 4th level in spells.     

There are ways of course to increase your MP, but I like having some balance since the MU gets to cast more spells per day, and in practice, the lower level spells get cast more anyway. I also allow spell fumbles if you roll a 1 on the to cast roll ( think Mickey in Fantastia) and spell crits of some sort. A Feat added to a spell is measured against the Knowledge Arcana rank, not the MP, so let's say you have a score of 6 in KA and your feat makes your spell =7th level, than its a no go, but 6 or less you can cast it. 

My real concern is in practice how much work this will add as a DM....that's the one place the fire and forget system helps you out. I hate slowing down the game while I crunch numbers for multiple casters.

Matt Miller 

Spells levels were actually something I was trying to avoid, using a direct DC. Then the feat modifies the DC directly. Rather than translating spell+feat to DC, then rolling.

Keith Gatchalian

...Tying level to spell DC. Something like 15+1 = a 16DC for a first level spell. Should be easy to make with a fair number of ranks in Spellcraft, but that's why I was trying to make several skills needed to be an effective mage.

Mela

Class Tropes

I started with a series of tropes:

• "Rough start": Orphaned, abandoned, enslaved, grew up in a slum, kidnapped
• "Extreme Training": "All we did was train. For years".
• "Martial Elite": Part of a military caste, with associated training, wealth and privilege.
• "Cloistered": Hidden from broader society and humanity; by distance or secrecy
• "Esoteric Arts": Fantastic and Fantasy skills from myth and legend
• "Hierarchy": You take order from above; divine or imperial. 
• "Jack of All Trades": Little bit of everything, bonus to all skills.
• "Armed & Armored": Fighting is what you do;

TROPES BY CLASS

• Berserker: Rough Start, Extreme Training, Armed&Armored
• Templar: Cloistered, Obedience, Rough start, Armed&Armored
• Priest: Esoteric Arts, Obedience
• Soldier: Jack of all Trades, Armed&Armored
• Knight/Samurai: Military Elite, Hierarchy, Armed&Armored
• Mystic: Rough Start, Extreme Training, Cloistered
• Champion: Cloistered, Esoteric Arts, Hierarchy, Armed&Armored
• Assassin/Ninja: Military Elite, Extreme Training, Cloistered
• Criminal: Rough Start, Cloistered, Hierarchy
• Rogue: Rough Start, Jack of All Trades
• Sorcerer: Esoteric Arts, Cloistered, Military Elite
• Warlock: Esoteric Arts, Rough Start, Armed&Armored
• Wizard: Esoteric Arts, Extreme Training, Cloistered

DnD Class Analogues

• Barbarian-->'Berserker' (Rage: Temporary HP, Bonus Damage, Immunity)
• Cleric-->'Templar'/Sohei/Monk (Exotic Weapons, Shield-Brother, Demon-Hunter?)
• Cleric-->'Priest'/Shaman (Favor for spells, Lay on Hands)
• Fighter-->'Soldier'/Guard/Mercenary/Bandit (More skills, more general)
• Fighter-->'Knight'/Samurai (Specialty fighting, Armor or Bow, Resources)
• Monk-->'Mystic'/Shugenja/Hermit (Martial Arts, Chi)
• Paladin-->'Champion'/Avatar/"Extra measure of Grace, Extra Measure of Duty" (Smite, Favored Enemy, Immunity, Track?)
• Rogue--> 'Assassin'/Ninja (Breaking & Entering, Vital strike, Poisson, Ambush, Dark-fighting)
• Rogue--> 'Criminal': Yakuza/Triad/Mafioso/Thieves Guild/Jhereg (Burglar, Pick-pocket, etc).
• Rogue--> 'Rogue'/Minstrel, "World owes me a living", (Gambling, Trickery, Charisma,)
• Sorcerer-->'Sorcerer' (Bloodline, Channeling, MP)
• Warlock-->'Warlock' (Darkpact, Powers, Evocations, Accursed, Dark Knight?)
• Wizard--> 'Wizard' (Spellcraft check vs spell DC)

I pitched a few classes out as suitable only for tribal/demi-human societies

• Bard-->NULL
• Druid-->NULL
• Ranger--> NULL

PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS

Matt Miller

I found Richard A. Bartle's manuscript entitled "HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS" to be a very worthwhile read. MUD's are closer to Table-Top RPGs than to MMO-RPGs, which makes the analysis of player types especially relevant. It also highlights what makes DnD both irritating and so enduring: While preferable to few, it is acceptable to many. And when trying to get a group together to play, that's a big factor.

http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

A typology of table-top players

Matt Miller

A table-top players. And what's more classic than the DnD alignment system? 

1. "Strivers" (LG) Players who want to advance the plot and level up their characters.
2. "Listeners" (NG) Into the story being told, but a participant on an ad-hoc basis.
3. "Thespians) (CG) Enriches the game with an engaging, dramatic, memorable character.
4. "Min-maxers!" (LN) Use and abuse of the rules to combo abilities and effects together in crazy and sometimes awesome ways. Can be game-breaking.
5. "Socializers" (NN) Doesn't care about the game, is just here to hang out with friends. Would happily watch a movie instead.
6. "Mad man" (CN) Uses a roleplaying game as an opportunity to be feckless, reckless, and wild. Isn't out to wreck your plot, but acts like a maniac, always doing something. Easily bored.
7. "Rules Lawyer" (LE) Anal about enforcing the rules, to the detriment of both plot and role-playing.
8. "Distracted" (NE) Not paying attention. Vanished into their phone. Enjoys side-coversations, but prefers them to the game, and will not shut up.
9. "Troll" (CE) Is playing a meta-game, vs. the DM. Foments party discord, kills critical NPCs, ignores the plot.

In general:

• Good: Active participants in the game, furthering it.
• Neutral: Along for the ride
• Evil: Tends to fuck up your game.

• Lawful: Into the rules of the game
• Neutral: Obedient to rules
• Chaotic: Don't feel constrained by the rules. They do things on the fly and expect the GM to wing it. Thespians tend to improv to enhance the story; madmen tend to just do things to see if they can; trolls try to push the GM to breaking point. Will justify actions by saying say "But that's what my character would do!"

Matt Miller on Level Granularity

Matt Miller

I bought DnD 4E (strictly for research purposes, I assure you), which had 30 levels. This was done in clear imitation of MMORPGs, which have more levels than DnD, and provided a longer duration of character advancement. Yet having watched a room-mate soul-lessly grind his WoW character from levels 60 to 80, I'm not sure that adding more levels adds much to the game. Dresden Files, there are four 'Power levels', and it plays well. Are RPG's better off with fewer levels?

Rob Hicks on Level Granularity

Rob Hicks

IN SUMMARY:

10 levels. Preferably gaining levels about every 3-5 sessions, but advancing specific abilities or skills at the end of every session along the way. Also, don't forget to put weaker versions of the coolest abilities in the lower registers, and don't make the higher level characters unkillable by lower levels.

IN ESSAY FORMAT

From a game design philosophy perspective, character progression is important. For the story-driven characters, new capabilities, experiences, contacts and resources represent a concrete reward for overcoming challenges. Frodo and his hobbit buddies learned a lot from their adventuring, and brought back experience and skills that changed who they were and their role in the world. New abilities, skills, gear and levels represent that growth, and when they got home? They kicked ass. (Both skill and level systems accomplish this, so I'm not trying to re-open that discussion. (We actually use a combination of both.)

But Matt's question was how far should that scale? Are levels necessary, and if so, what should the range be?

To answer that question, I would put forth a few ideas that make that growth appealing, and to identify what I thought should go into that decision.

1. You don't HAVE to start at level zero, but you might want to.

One of the more frustrating/fun things about dnd 3e was how fragile those first level characters felt, especially the casters. I'm a Dark Souls player, and I don't mind having my characters die. There is a thrill in that kind of danger that goes away at about 5th level, when synergy kicks in and characters start getting stupidly powerful.

You could argue that not all players like that kind of fragility, which means there should be options for either starting at a higher level, or taking specific abilities that make them less likely to die. We wrote in an optional "Survivor" ability where a character could cheat death once per day, and a lot of players liked it.

2. Lower levels don't have to be boring.

One of the mistakes that dnd made was that a lot of the cooler abilities weren't even available until higher level. They later fixed this with expansion content and made it a little better in 4e, but it always bugged me that some of the more iconic abilities, invisibility, flight, etc, didn't kick in until higher levels. That is completely unnecessary.

Take invisibility, for example. Invisibility is a powerful mechanic, but that doesn't mean you can't have weaker versions of it available at lower level. We used a couple of variants for lower level effects, like one where you have to stay still, one that was opposed by perception checks, and another that only worked for a single action, rather than having a longer duration. Limitations can be placed on "higher-level" abilities without breaking the rest of the game system.

3. Higher levels can have weaknesses.

Lower level characters should probably be weaker than higher level characters, but that doesn't mean that higher levels should be immortal and untouchable. Constantly raising HP is usually the culprit for this, so we just standardized HP based on their endurance attribute, which has worked pretty well. They should have more options and be stronger, but not untouchable. In most cases, higher levels should mean higher stakes and MORE danger, not less. The only way that DND does this is by introducing insta-kill enemies, which were usually terrible.

4. Numerical gains are interesting... to a point.

Players like to see progress, and stats and bonuses are an interesting way to show that, but there is a point where it doesn't matter anymore. Players only really understand certain ranges of numbers. Most players won't notice the difference between a +6 and a +7 bonus, let alone a +13 vs +14. Numeric advantages should not be in large numbers, or they cease to matter. Mayhem uses 20 levels, but most of the action takes place between 1 and 10. If I were to do it again, I would consider just doing 10 levels.

Someone in Matt's thread mentioned that a level 3 character up against a level 3 enemy is basically the same thing as a level 10 character vs a level 10 enemy, which is often true, but a good GM will vary the difficulty of enemies over time so that things are a little more diverse than just a 1-1 ratio. Playing around in that range is a GMing trick that alternates challenge and power-fantasy in a way that keeps players engaged.

5. Consistent progress is important.

Waiting three sessions to level is, in my opinion, unacceptable. Players need to see progress every session to keep the best engagement. It doesn't have to be major, a few points here or there, or adding minor abilities each time, but there should be a slow progression. We use a combination of skill levels and level caps to grant new skills and minor abilities every session, but only raising the caps about every 3 sessions. It encourages diversifying and growing a character, and keeps people wanting to play each week.

That is the advantage of having a wider range, and a counter-point to #4. If players play regularly, they can burn through levels really quickly. A little longer game means players can stick with their favorite characters over time. realistically, however, very few players have the time to invest for a game of that length, and even if they do, a game should have enough rich character concepts that they have more than one archetype that they want to play through.

"everything the designer adds builds in some sort of genre assumption"

Travis Casey 

.....games with logarithmic ability ratings tend to scale up and down better than those with linear scales, making them suitable for a broader range of genres without major adjustments. As another example, in a skill-based system, adding a single new skill can allow you to support multiple new character types, whereas in a strict class-based system, each new type requires creating another class.
     Thus, while everything the designer adds builds in some sort of genre assumption, a designer can attempt to make choices that restrict the range of genres minimally. Perhaps just as important, the designer can also explain the choices that were made, why they were made, and alternatives... thus creating a 'hacker's guide" for those interested in using the core of the system for other genres. Some games don't attempt this at all, while others make it a major selling point.

Genre and Setting

Jeremy Forbing

Genre and setting are two different things....every role-playing game simulates a genre, whether it has a setting or not. A decision like how many wounds can a character take before being killed is a genre decision. ....There are genre assumptions baked into the design of Fate and ORE.
    Lovecraftian investigation is a perfect example. The Call of Cthulhu system, and the Gumshoe system as well, are designed to prioritize and allow a slow trickle of revealed information that quickens into a flood towards the end that breaks characters' minds, thus emulating the feel, pace, and convention of Lovecraft's major short stories. A Fate version of a Lovecraft story would feel much pulpier, and likely have a much harder time that slow burn over a long campaign. This isn't a knock against Fate, a system a like which is designed for fast-paced story-driven adventure.
    Sure, you can run any genre with any system, but will it feel like a particular kind of story from that genre? Unlikely, unless the system is designed for it. D&D in 1979 and D&D in 2016 are both generic fantasy systems, yet both have assumptions about fantasy built in (magic from Jack Vance, Poul Anderson paladins, Tolkien races), and in many ways they were designed with different genres of fantasy in mind-- for example character death lurked around under every corner in the 70's, now it is rare.
    World War II RPGs where you keep track of ammo vs. ones where you don't feel like very different genres of war movie or novel. System is always built on ideas about the general tropes that create and constrain the kind of stories that will be told with it: in a word, genre. 

Travis Casey 

Genre and setting are strongly interlinked.....As far as all games having a genre "baked in" - we're talking about *systems*, not games. Different games using the same system can alter various parameters. For example, D&D 3E, Star Wars d20, and Mutants & Masterminds all use the d20 System... but they all use different subsystems for determining the effects of damage. Quite a few "universal games" offer multiple subsystems for various things, to allow "tweaking" the game to fit the genre you wish.

Jeremy Forbing 

I think the distinctions between game and system are even more nebulous than that. When you talk about the D20 system being one system, for example, it seems like you're really talking more about one resolution mechanic. Even single mechanics within systems have genre considerations,....
     Still, some of those games run into trouble when trying to step outside the original assumptions of the stories that would be told with it. M&M replaces the damage system with one much better suited to cape types, but still has some baggage built in from an assumed hierarchy of levels and internal game balance. It also sometimes chokes when applying its basic mathematical model (essentially, opposed ticks of 5% up and down a spectrum of possibilities of success of failure) to the dynamics of superheroics.
     The same designer (Steve Kenson) wrote both M&M and a superhero version of Fate, and I would argue Fate's mechanics suit the story driven flow of comic book stories way better, even though the same gifted writer with a deep knowledge of the genre worked on both.
     ...all D&D type ... games.... assumes many things beyond Hit Points and the likelihood of death; it assumes heroes who grow in formidability across a large scale over time ....tracking the acquisition and use of individual wealth and possessions....regular interaction with contained environments that want to kill you....characters that receive ambient information with varying degrees of opacity
     You can design a role-playing game without making assumptions about setting beyond the general (gravity existing, etc.), but not without building in certain givens about genre, even if you do so unconsciously or in an attempt at realism. 

Platform Systems

Matt Miller

GURPS, FATE, ORE, BRP, Hero System, and Savage Worlds are all 'systems', in the sense that they provide a resolution mechanic that can be applied in a wide variety of contexts. They also have the 'core' elements of a system: Primary Attributes, some way of using skills, and some way of dealing with abilities. But while they provide the skeleton, it's a skeleton that requires a lot of fleshing out by the GM. I call these 'Platform' systems.
I contrast this with other games where there is a substantial amount of game content tied to a specific implementation of a game, and is often closely coupled with a specific setting. Examples of which being Monte Cook's '9th World', or the '13th Age' system or Dresden Files.
Examining DnD 5E, with its extensive lists of overlapping classes, lack of specific geography and early release of OGL/SRD, I begin to wonder if WotC/Hasbro isn't trying to make DnD into a 'platform' system.

Keith J Davies

And contrariwise, 13th Age can be played with other than their published setting -- it's more work, because they've hung so much off the icons. You'll want to replace the icons, but once you've done that you're most of the way there.

Marco Subias

...GURPS, FATE, ORE, BRP, Hero, are all at least somewhat generic systems with supplements that support campaign specialization. I can use any of those systems right out of the box to run all sorts of campaigns involving all sorts of time periods, tech levels, genres, and settings. DnD? Not so much. 

 Travis Casey

A few thoughts here:
      First, how RPGs advertise themselves doesn't always match their reality. Hypothetically, for example, The Dresden Files RPG is setting-specific... but it's flexible enough that it works quite well as a generic urban fantasy RPG. As a more extreme version, The Fantasy Trip is supposedly set in the world of Cidri... but we're told very little about Cidri, and it's explicitly made to be a huge world where "every GM's campaign setting can fit". Thus, TFT is really a fairly generic fantasy game.
      Games that actually tie the setting and mechanics strongly together are really fairly rare. Nobilis comes to mind as one, as do Everway and A Dirty World. Most games become "setting specific" not because of the actual mechanics of play, but because of the built-in details about the game world. D&D is a classic example: what's ostensibly a generic fantasy game comes hard-wired with a huge number of assumptions about the game world built into its classes, races, and monsters.
      Second, "universal" vs "setting specific" isn't a binary switch; it's a continuum. Even ostensibly "universal" games tend to have certain things they handle better than others. For GURPS, it's fairly low-powered, high-realism worlds. HERO does well in genres where its power-building system can shine, such as superheroes and fantasy. On the opposite end of things, we can say, for example, that 'Chivalry and Sorcery' is much more specific in the range of game worlds that it's designed for than The Fantasy Trip is, even though both are meant for "medieval fantasy"
     Third, people have differing ideas of what "game system" means. For example, A Dirty World is hypothetically an ORE system game, but it actually shares almost nothing but the die mechanic it uses with the other ORE games. D&D 3E and d20 Modern are both "d20 System" games, but they have completely different class setups. Going further, Mutants & Masterminds is also based on the d20 System... but it completely drops the idea of classes, and uses levels simply as a convenient measure of power (using them to set standard power point totals and power limits).
     In the last year, there's been a lot of "White Box" based systems released - White Star for SF, Warriors of the Red Planet for sword-and-planet science fantasy, White Lies for espionage. They all share the class/level paradigm and the same core mechanics, but they each have their own set of classes, races, and other supporting rules for their genres. This is really just a commercializing of something people have been doing since RPGs were new - taking whatever system they had or liked, and adapting it to the genre(s) they wanted to play in.