Continuing on Magic and Race

So after I dropped the last idea into my online bucket, I went ahead and made a brief write-up for it:

"Certain types of magic are traditional to (and generally guarded by) certain races:

Dwarves are regarded as the masters of Gem Magic, while Elves have long been the keepers of Crystal Resonance.  This has lead to a feud between the two races, as the Dwarves begrudge the harvesting of quartz and other appropriate crystals for what they view as a "perversion" of Gem Magic, while the Elves say that Gem Magic was an attempt by the Dwarves to steal the knowledge of Crystal Resonance.

Halflings use Sorcery, though other races often refer to it derogatorily as Witchcraft.  It is a simplistic magic, but with no less potential to be powerful.

Gnomes, with their analytical minds and love for categorizing, developed Occultism, which relies upon hidden knowledge derived from both arcane formulas and religious texts and ceremonies (which are often formulas disguised as dogma and doctrine).

Humans, with their short lifespans and overwhelming drive for power and knowledge, have not developed their own form of magic, instead learning whatever form they prefer (or can get their hands on).

It is possible to learn more than one type of magic, though finding willing teachers may be difficult."

Demonwars: One More Thing

Something I'd intended to bring up last post, that strikes close to some of the problems I've been having with differentiating between races, is that the setting (at least in this book) doesn't have non-human PCs.  Even the elves of the world, the Touel'alfar, are treated as a mysterious NPC faction that will occasionally take human children off to be trained as this game's version of the Ranger class, but is generally unseen unless they want to be seen.  So you can play as an elf-trained human, but you're still human.

For the setting, this likely makes sense (again, I haven't read the books the setting is based on), but from a mechanical standpoint it also makes things less complicated and tricky, regarding balance between races and what sorts of differences they have: there are no different races for PCs, so there are no differences.

I don't know that I want to go that route, but there are times that solution seems tempting.

Gem Magic

One of the several d20 books I have on my shelves is R.A. Salvatore's Demonwars Campaign Setting book. It's got a neat flavor to it, despite that I've never read the books its based on. Definitely a lower magic setting than traditional D&D, with most hybrid classes only being permitted if they drop their spellcasting abilities, and clerics/druids/wizards/sorcerers being replaced entirely with setting-appropriate casting types based on the indigenous magic system: specially imbued gemstones.

Woo, objectification.

Sexualized cover art aside, I really like the concept of gem magic and the way it has been implemented in this system.  Enough that I would use it, perhaps slightly modified, in my own games, except that as it is I'm already struggling with too many options and magic systems.  I had wanted to make this system less complicated, not more, and having multiple systems of magic and spellcasting does not fit with that goal.

Regarding the setting's system, essentially there are gemstones which are imbued with magic (as well as naturally occurring gemstones that are not imbued, and can't be used to cast spells).  The type of stone determines what type of magic or effects it can produce in the hands of a skilled wielder.  Certain feats permit wielding two or even three stones at once, combining them to produce new effects not possible with only one gemstone.

The setting uses a mana-type system instead of spells-per-day, since you invoke the power of a stone through channeling that mana into/through it, and gem-wielding classes get 1d8 mana per level, with a bonus from their Con modifier.  This still provides a limiter, which is what a spells/day system does, but there is also the secondary limiter of having any magic dependent upon having one of these special gemstones.  There's no learning new spells each level, or scroll scribing giving a wizard a utilitarian edge.  You either have the stone you need, or you don't - leveling just gives you more mana.  Multiple gem wielders, though, can potentially share stones with each other, and I don't think there's any mention of stones breaking or losing their magical properties with use.

Combining it with any other magic system has the potential to make gem magic significantly under-powered, which means if I do want to use it, it may have to be the only magic system available.  Alternatively, I could keep all these systems as options and leave it up to the players as to what gets used.

Free-Form Featherfall

So, I've scrapped the entirety of my magic system, including the compendium list of spells that I'd accumulated, and replaced it with a free-form system somewhat reminiscent of the casting system in Fabletop or the skill and magic system in Shadowrun.  For purposes of nostalgia (and because I'm not ready to scrap my list of weaponry and make all weapons of any given size equal), I still have physical combat within the d20 set-up.

So how does this make things simpler?

I have some basic rules for how spells work, and how adding on different effects increases the cost of any given spell on casting.  But by making the magic system entirely free-form I eliminate the need for resource books.  No more looking up spell descriptions.

It makes it potentially more powerful, sure.  High-powered mages have always been powerful.  And there's still the limiter of "I'm the DM," plus the added bonus that a player can't point to the rulebook and say "but, but, but!"  Plus, it gives the player an excuse to roll a whole bunch of six-siders, which is always fun.

My test subje-erm... game tester has brought up the concern that it can be easier on the player to have a list of spells to work from, the idea that you can look in your toolbox and see what you've got.  And while there is some truth there, if a player wanted to they could write down spells they've used or come up with to refer from later on as well.  I think the potential for versatility and accessibility outweighs that particular bonus.  Plus, I've already come up with a short list of example spells that simulate well-known effects, so if someone says "well what can I do?" I can hand them that list.

Another aspect of this free-form system is that it means any caster can cast any spell.  Healing, direct-damage, buffs/debuffs, whatever, is free game.  Because as I've discussed here before, the idea that any given person can't figure out how to make a spell work in their own tradition is a bit weak.  So I have two spellcasting traditions, Arcanist and Spiritualist.  You can claim the power comes from a potato on a string around your neck, if you like - the only mechanical difference is which of the two spellcasting stats you use for your primary.

This free-form system will also work for psionics, and I have the mechanics in place to support a psionic system, but psionics have always been a bit game-breaking as far as power goes, primarily due to the general non-existence of psionic-resistant monsters.  I'm thinking I may keep psionic ability as a rarity, rolled at character generation, as my mother does it.

Online Gaming Resources

I came across this site a couple months ago, and overall I like it: http://fabletop.com/  Simple, easy to use, great for quick pick-up games.  Biggest problem is there is very little you can do to customize the system to suit your tastes.  The system in place is good, not saying otherwise, but it makes playtesting my own system on the site rather difficult.  Also, though there were a small number of people running games when I first joined, the site seems to be languishing right now, possibly due to a lack of GMs.  If you already have a playerbase to bring to the site, not so much an issue, but it can be hard (as a player) to find a game when you're available to play.

So I also came across this site: http://roll20.net/   Not quite as simple and certainly not as quick and easy to set up a game, but the customization is much more universal.  Dice are customizable, and I can actually use my own system on the site.  Plus, the option of voice and video chat between players is a nice touch.  I played around with it a lot tonight, and I'll probably end up using it to run games soon.  It seems vastly more populated than Fabletop, though that's less of a concern for me there since I'll be playtesting my own system.

On a side note, I may need to tweak the bonuses for weapon skills.  It looks as though I may have been a wee bit generous.

System Overhaul

When last we left our intrepid game designer, he was blathering on about some dream, completely unrelated to the task of creating a gaming system.  After several months of not much progress, a recent visit from a close friend and play-tester yielded an unexpected result.

"Dude, you're making things way too complicated."

Faced with the accuracy of the statement, the game designer leapt to his mental feet and declared, "I have so much work to do!" before collapsing into the fetal position at the prospect of the undertaking now at hand.

Outside the city, in a remote location, our hero worked tirelessly at his task.  Though he'd broken the archetypal classes into their base components already, he still had ended up with what was essentially a class-based system, one which dizzied the mind with its complexity as he strove to make a fantasy gaming structure more realistic.  Taking up the tools of his craft, he tore this structure apart and rebuilt it into something simpler, cleaner, more fluid.  The basic details and abilities of a character could be seen with a single glance.  He had done the unthinkable.

The System was reborn.  Three stats, from which all else derived.  No classes, nor class-fragments, but a comprehensive list of skills to govern the abilities of a character.  And yet this simplicity maintained, at its core, a means to fit within the dynamics of 3rd Edition rules, providing the ability to use available Monster Manuals.

The game designer sat back to survey his work, making small adjustments.  He found it to be shiny.  But there were still questions to be answered, regarding how much of a role the character's level was to play, in contrast with skills and ability scores.

And so he sat, fondly inspecting his new creation, awaiting the chance to see it in action.

Tolerating Distractions

Once again, enlightenment from another blog's comments.  Normally when I read the comments on internet articles and blogs, I'm left with disappointment over the state of humanity, so this is a welcome change of pace.

I recently followed a few gaming blogs on G+, and through that stumbled across this article regarding gamers who don't pay strict attention at the table.  Knitting at the table is kind of awesome, and is less distracting (for the other players) than my backpacker.  I know one GM who sometimes crochets while running the game, when the players are planning things out and so on.  In most cases, it is as easy to pick up and put down as anything else and is productive to boot.  I'm fairly lenient when it comes to distracted gamers, though I'll admit to some of the typical insecurities regarding whether or not the person is invested in the game, and whose fault that may be if they aren't.  However, my wife and I have discussed at various times her envy-inducing multitasking abilities, so usually I'm able to keep in mind that even if she doesn't appear to be paying attention physically, her mind is still focused on the game.  It was nice, then, to see this comment from "dfjdejulio":

So, on the “knitting while playing tabletop games” thing, I might be able to give a little perspective on why some people react so negatively to it.

My spouse does this sort of thing. I do not.

I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. My spouse has some ADHD-like symptoms but has never gotten a diagnosis. Right around the time of my diagnosis, I studied up on the condition, reading a lot of books and some articles from medical journals and stuff.

Some people with ADHD cannot concentrate well *if* more than one thing is going on. Other people with ADHD cannot concentrate well *unless* more than one thing is going on.

(What *seems* to be going on is, when the primary activity isn’t stimulating enough to occupy every last drop of their attention, they can “bleed off” some of the excess need-for-stimulation via secondary activities. If they’re blocked from doing this it gets frustrating and they fidget and daydream and stuff and just can’t focus.)

Whether she actually has ADHD or not, the latter certainly describes my spouse. She’s even got empirical data to back this up — when she started studying and doing homework with the TV *on*, her grades went *up*, and that correlation remained in place from high school through grad school. It was an objectively measurable effect, not just a subjective experience.

I, on the other hand, am the sort who can’t concentrate if anything else is going on.

Her behavior drove me *nuts* until I understood it, because if *I* had been behaving that way, well, it would have meant that I cared so little for the game that I had no intention of participating in it. But she needed the extra distraction in order to participate. What would have been a display of contempt from me was an accommodation in order to remain involved from her.

(Similarly, when we’re ordering pizza, I have to either pause or mute the TV, because otherwise I often can’t even read the pizza menu — my ability to multitask is *that* poor. This drove *her* nuts until she understood my nature better.)

I don't have ADHD (or at least, have never been diagnosed with it), but this still resonates with me very strongly.  I cannot multitask well at all.  If I open up a browser window while playing on a MUD, there's a good chance I'll get focused on whatever is in the browser and forget that I'm still logged into a game underneath it.  If there is a television within my field of vision, I have difficulty focusing on anything else in the room, whether it's visual or aural.  Trying to use multiple devices with multiple screens, something becoming iconic in the world of geeks and gaming, is simply beyond me.  I can listen to music while doing something else, but anything visual typically ends up derailing me.

My wife, on the other hand, typically has about twenty browser tabs open and is connected to the MUD while doing her college coursework, with the television on.  It makes me jealous, and also sometimes makes it difficult for me to understand comments that she makes because I wasn't paying attention to whatever source spurred the comment.  But, she cannot deal with having a lot of noise, or multiple sources of aural input, especially if she's trying to talk.  Music playing while the television is on ends up being too chaotic and cacophonous.  Sometimes just music on the radio is too much - she focuses better with silence.

So, I can handle background noise but not background visuals, while she can deal with visuals but not noise. There are exceptions on both sides, but this is the typical situation.

Both my wife and our friend Jonathan use their laptops to store character sheets for my game.  It's a lot harder to lose a laptop than a piece of paper or even a folder, and digital files are much easier to edit (and don't suffer from eraser marks).  Most of my game rules and information is also kept on my computer, though I try to only open it up on an as-needed basis.  So I have come to expect a certain level of distraction during my games, and for the most part I've built up a tolerance and I'm okay with it.  I have my limits as well, but it doesn't come up often because I know that it's mostly just satisfying the need/urge to fidget when the player's character isn't in the spotlight.

When I'm a player, though, rather than a GM, I use paper character sheets, and limit my "distractions" to random dice rolling and fiddling around on the guitar if there's no other music playing.  That's how I was raised, in gaming, so that's how I feel comfortable doing it.

Mad RP Skillz

   One of the people I follow on G+ linked to this livejournal post by Monte Cook, which started me thinking about things, but it wasn't until I read one of the comments on the post by Bryan Schuder that things started clicking for me. He wrote:

In one of my gaming groups, we had an interesting contrast that occurred that exemplifies why more constraint leads to constraint thought.

One GM started out the campaign in DnD 2nd Edtion, took it to 3.5, and then finally Pathfinder. To give him a break during the big changes and reworkings, I'd get to GM and prototype my game system and setting. My system is designed to be loose and admits to have gaps in coverage, but with the understanding that those are taken care of by things outside the core rules (game master or setting specific rulings). It was a blast, my players got to play all kinds of crazy characters (even players with no real combat skills that actually saved the day many, many times), do wild things (nano-tech infested player hijacks a pre-fall robot to distract and wrestle another robot infested with extra-dimensional bacteria.. while all the other players are trying to gun it down), and they felt their creativity would be greatly rewarded. (You know that hijacked pre-fall robot? They took it with them. It has it's own trailer. They used it to loot plasma cannons off of the turrets they disabled.) I'm an on-the-fly GM, so stick with outlines and let the players fill in the rest.

The interesting part came when we switched back to the other GM's campaign. Finally, in a discussion about tactics, the GM spouted, "Why don't you do crazy stuff in my game like you do in his game?" A player responded, "Well, in DnD there's all these rules and we try to do crazy cool stuff and it never works or we just can't do it." While I had a grin on my face, that statement stuck with me.

If your rules prevent anything outside their explicit domain from happening, players are going to naturally trend towards sticking within them. It's simple game theory; if no reward is had for an action, it will occur with decreasing frequency. Another situation came when our group tried out grid combat. While it allowed everything to be laid out well, our groups tendencies towards cool, creative ideas decreased quite rapidly. This bothered the GM and so we got rid of exact dimensions combat. After some testing, he went with the "not-to-scale minimap" setup. Allows the group to understand the layout, but not feel they are constrained to it any arbitrary movement rules. The creativity came back and all was good.

   First off, this helps me to realize that it might be okay to not have everything accounted for in the rules. My focus on playtesting was spurred by concerns about powergamers, rules lawyers, and just generally those people who would try to take advantage of any system, no matter how well designed. But honestly, the chances of me ever publishing whatever system I end up with are slim at best, and I don't see my playerbase growing at any point in the near future, so chances are good I can stop worrying about playtesting and just start playing.

   Secondly, it was nice to see that my decision to try and minimize any rules based on movement and grid-style tactics is not necessarily a terrible one. I still enjoy seeing a layout, and I still enjoy having miniatures as character and monster representations, but trying to lock down how fast or far someone can move tends to only slow combat down, and if combat isn't the primary focus of the game then that seems to be a mistake. 

   Thirdly, while reading through this I was reminded of skill systems in both D&D and Shadowrun, and how the GM's I've played under have handled skill resolution in the past. One thing that really frustrated me (as well as other players) at the Tuesday Game(tm) Shadowrun sessions was that we, the players, were more or less limited to our own experiences and personal strong points in designing characters to play. The GM ran most non-combat skills solely through RP, whether it was a social skill in trying to bluff or negotiate, checking for traps on a closed entryway, even disabling those traps. This depended on the player having knowledge that the character should have had, or been trained for, and it meant you were pretty much incapable if you didn't have player knowledge of how to do these things. If it was combat, or a skill the GM didn't have a personal basis for judgment on, you could just roll the dice.

   Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun at the games, and in Shadowrun, but often I would end up feeling like the points I would put into skills were wasted. Most often I played a Face/Negotiator type character, and the points I put into social skills meant I didn't have some of the machine, vehicle, or combat skills that others did. So when it came time for combat, I'd get one pistol shot and had to hope it would hit, as opposed to two or three initiative passes with machine guns or heavy artillery. Even if I took the cinematic route in combat, it still meant I'd maybe put down one baddie in the entire battle. Yet the sacrifice to my combat abilities felt meaningless, because not once did I ever pick up the dice to roll a social skill, despite having amazing dicepools in them. The only times my character would shine were at the beginning and end of a run, when the team had to meet with the contact to get the job and when we got paid, and maybe an occasional social infiltration.

   Here's an anecdotal example: The proverbial poo has hit the fan, with the party down on the docks outside a warehouse. Enemy targets are everywhere, including a helicopter. Police forces are on the way, but the gates to the dock are shut and locked. Since my character can't do anything meaningful in combat anyway, I pull back and hustle to the gatehouse to find the key and unlock the gate. The GM rules it will take me X rounds to get to the gatehouse, so I'm investing a lot of time and focus into this action while everyone else is making with the fireworks. I get to the gatehouse, grab the key, and start running for the gate. One of the party members with a heavy gun of some kind manages to disable the enemy helicopter. I reach the gate just as the helicopter crash lands into it, taking the gate down entirely. I'm left standing there, key in hand, having wasted all that time doing less than nothing, rather than even the next-to-nothing I'd have done if I'd stayed in combat with my pistol. I was so invested in trying to do the thing that was seen as most helpful to the situation, that I was unable to come up with alternative methods of involving myself in the scenario which might have had more ultimate effect.

   The image of my character standing there with the key in hand, staring dumbfounded at the now destroyed gate, burned itself into the minds of the players there, and everyone else got a big laugh. I grinned and bore it, then, but it has always bothered me. I had accepted the fact my character was more useful in doing this menial task than in trying to fight, and then was essentially told that no matter what I tried to do, my character's actions were entirely meaningless to the scenario. Thinking on that, and looking back now, I have to wonder how much any of the characters' actions in those runs made any difference, whether we actually made a difference to how things went or whether we were all just railroaded through the storyboards in the GM's head.

   This is one of the things that I keep in mind when I think about skill systems, and one of the reasons I lean towards a "tight rules" mentality when working out the mechanics of those skills.  If my players want to roleplay out a situation, that's great.  I would definitely give a bonus to their skill check if I thought they did a good job.  But basing the entire result on their RP, and ignoring whatever bonus they actually have to the skill, means that you never actually end up with people roleplaying their characters.  Instead, they end up just playing themselves, because that's the only way to progress.

Racial Diversity in Gaming

Once again I'm trying to tackle the question of how much or how little difference race selection should make in the game.  It seems like any explanation for giving bonuses or detriments, whether to stats, skills, or classes, is based on an attempt to propagate a stereotype of the race in question.  Yet this is generally only helpful if you intend to play to the stereotype, and most players I know like to break them instead.  Further, if you are playing in a system that allows you to place your ability scores as you like, rather than as you rolled them, then you're already optimizing for the class you want to play, and can manipulate the placement to either offset disadvantages or boost bonuses.

Back to the stereotyping issue: "Everyone" knows humans jack all the trades, elves are better at everything except being clerics and taking hits, dwarves are better at hitting things, getting hit, and making stuff, and sometimes being clerics, halflings are good at being sneaky, stealing anything not bolted down, and in some cases being clerics, while gnomes are the quirky alchemically-inclined arcanists.  If anyone plays a half-orc, it's always optimized for bashing things.  There are sub-races that break some of these rules, but generally speaking you don't see gnome barbarians, dwarven wizards, or half-orc bards.  There are various "reasons" given for these things, but without the setting's background it more or less seems arbitrary.  It gives a bit of flavor, another choice for the player, while still remaining (in theory) numerically balanced.

I guess what I'm getting into is flavor vs. substance.  Ice cream is ice cream, but choosing chocolate, vanilla, or any of the other 47 flavors is what makes the experience personalized, unique, and memorable.  Yet when it comes to race, what would be the ultimate difference between playing an elf (for example) rather than a human?  If you're already placing stats as you want them, you can put your high numbers in Dex and Int if you want to play to the widespread stereotypes.  Is it enough to simply state "my character is an elf?"  Is roleplay the major factor, or does there need to be a mechanical variance in order to really feel like you made a defining choice in the character's development?

I spoke with my wife about some of this, and came to the conclusion that I don't like assigning racial stereotypes.  Considering I'm a Sociology major, I guess this shouldn't be a surprise.  I'd rather leave it up to the player to determine what stereotype, if any, they want to play to or break away from.  But if there are no defined norms or stereotypes to begin with, then the player has nothing to guide him or her.  Stereotypes and norms would only come about by having enough player-created characters to build them organically.

Overall, I've decided that it isn't within the scope of mechanics-building to define these things, but in setting or world-building.  It is the campaign world which determines what is the norm, and mechanics are altered to suit. I could build a world where dwarves are the penultimate magic-users, elves have developed steam technology, halflings can take a severe beating and still keep going, and humans are terrible at everything except being clerics.  Sure, this flies in the face of most fantasy literature, and I'd have to come up with some fairly solid reasoning and explanation for why things were that way, but there's nothing stopping me from doing so.  The biggest problem with this, though, is that if I provide a setting with norms that are too different from what players expect, it will likely be (at least at first) confusing and may put them off if they don't enjoy it.  If someone expects chocolate ice cream, and gets pistachio instead, they probably won't be happy.

On the far side of the moon, I remember one of my gaming books mentioning that, yes, the setting does have set and discriminatory gender roles, but that's just part of the game society and is something the character will have to deal with, either by trying to blend in or by fighting the system and trying to enact change.  By creating norms and stereotypes, I'd also be providing a social contract for the characters to either adhere to or challenge, which can make for really good RP, but doesn't necessarily help me test my game mechanics.

Okay, I've gotten sidetracked here.  Determining whether this is a system issue or a setting issue doesn't help me to decide what sorts of mechanical differences I should be applying.

Size is basic, and easy. Regardless of what a race is called or whatever abilities it may have, its relative size to humans is something that doesn't bug me to include.  It determines non-magical weaponry available, and by 3rd Ed. also has an effect on armor class.  Also by 3rd Ed. it has an effect on movement speed, and my friend brought up the effect of size on reach as well, but that tends to get into positional combat tactics that I was trying to avoid, for the most part, in system construction.  There is a part of me that it appeals to, but it also can slow combat down in contrast with the system I grew up on.

Various vision types are available, with variations between editions to draw upon.  It still touches on pre-existing stereotypes of what defines a race, but it's easier for me to deal with than stat boosts.

Bonuses with weapons or skills and stat bonuses, and even discounted experience costs for certain classes based on race, are things that would make mechanical differences, but are the strongest "offenders" as far as stereotyping go.  Is it somehow inherently flawed or wrong if every race is capable of being just as much a jack-of-all-lanterns as humans are?  Should humans have some sort of specialty as well?

Too many questions, and I've run out of pebbles for now.

With Great Power Comes A Need For Control

I recently showed my static mana plan to my mother, the woman who raised me in modified AD&D. She liked the concept and implementation, up to a point - she raised concerns over it being too much power for a low-level character. My original thought was that, yeah, a 1st level mage might end up being able to cast 18 magic missiles, but magic is to a wizard what a sword is to a fighter, and the latter aren't restricted to how many swings in a day.

But then I thought about some of the other system changes I'd made from 1st and 3rd, and how weaponry and armor, as well as multiple attacks, have less to do with your class and more with your inherent stats. A mage might have stats optimized for casting, but if they'd taken fighter as a class instead they'd be no better off in physical combat. Any class can wear any armor, and my spell failure for arcane magic is based off of how much metal is in the armor rather than how much it inhibits arm movements for somatic components (something which seemed far too easily remedied with careful manufacture anyway).

So maybe I'm being too nice to casters.

Rather than come up with a system that limits how much mana is available until the maximum is reached, however, I thought about the possibility that spells might, at first, take more mana than would be indicated by their level. Say, for example, that at first level, a 1st level spell costs 5 mana instead of 1. You're just starting out in the world of magic, you haven't had a lot of practical experience, and you're still learning how to properly, and efficiently, wield the power you have. At second level, the cost goes down by 1 point. At third level, it now takes 3 mana for a 1st level spell, and so on until you reach the minimum of 1 point for a 1st level spell at 5th level.

Every time you gain access to a new level of spells, the cost of them is X higher than normal, let's say 4. That would mean that 4 levels after you start getting spells of that level, they would cost the normal minimum of 1 mana per spell level.

This could be a bit confusing for cantrips, since they normally take 1/4th of a mana. I could start them at 4, or I could be nice and start them at 1, dropping by 1/4 each level until the minimum.

Thoughts?

Keep Those Dice a'Rollin'

So my friend Jonathan came out this past week (Huzzah!) and we got to game a little bit. I am still fairly enamored with my new experience system, especially how clean it looks/feels to me at the moment. One potential concern that I noticed is that my system for saving throws and skill checks may be inherently flawed. The concept is that you roll 3d10, and you are aiming for a number lower than the relevant stat with a bonus gained from a secondary stat. With an expected average stat of 15, and a range of 3 to 30, I figured 3d10 would be appropriate. However, it seems that the majority of rolls are landing above 16 even after adjustments. I should have expected this, but I'm not yet sure how to deal with it. I was trying to approximate a d30, but I don't actually have any of those and they're not terribly common anyway. I suppose I could do a d6 and a d10, like how d20 rolls used to be done before d20s became popular. 1-2 on the d6 means the d10 is 1-10, 3-4 means it's 11-20, and 5-6 means 21-30. I'll have to do some blank rolling to find out if that brings the average down.

In pondering further upon the topic of skills, I thought about the idea of a slow method of improving skills based directly on Intelligence, rather than class as 3rd Edition had it. I'm thinking about putting a limiter, though, on how much of a bonus you can give any individual skill, based on the primary stat governing that skill. Maybe half of the stat? One of the things that really bugged me about 3rd Edition skills was that within a few levels the bonus to the skill far outstripped the ability of most challenges to keep up. Difficulty ratings kept getting arbitrarily bumped up just to have any chance of failure. I'm also, personally, a believer in inherent ability being a greater contributor than training.

Methods of Improvement

I already had a system in place that would allow a character's Faith score to be malleable through the course of normal play, changing the score based on exceptional success or exceptional failure with Turning checks. Just today I wrote down and implemented a similar idea for the Luck stat, where the Luck would alter with exceptional critical hits (consecutive natural 20s), or exceptional critical fumbles (consecutive natural 1s).

I also allow stats to be built up using Combat Proficiencies (my term for Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, or Feats, depending on your chosen version. I don't know what the 4th Ed. equivalent is, but I don't care), but since I have these two stats as potentially variable I was wondering if there were other stats that people thought should be so quickly alterable. I know that physical stats such as Strength should not be so quickly or easily changed, but maybe Charisma might be affected by apparent wealth, or the Charisma scores of the people you're with?

Probably not, since it's a bit trickier than the systems I have in place for Faith and Luck. As it stands, Faith is really only important to one class, or anyone who wants to Turn or Rebuke undead. Luck is a bit more universally useful, since it affects saving throws, but there are two classes in particular that are majorly helped by having Luck as a primary stat. I like having these two stats alterable on-the-fly because I think it reflects the concept behind them well, but I don't know that any of the others really lend themselves to such.

Softrope RPG Soundscape Producer

I happened on this site through Obsidian Portal a couple days ago, and just got around to playing with it today. So far I'm very happy with it. It allows a good deal of control over what sounds are playing and when, allowing randomized tracks and looping, as well as fade-outs (though no fade-ins, strangely). The biggest problem is that it's still in Beta, and there is no manual, but it's fairly user-friendly.

I get a kick out of putting stuff like this together, and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to put together environmental sounds or soundtracks for their games, though it's definitely more intensive than hitting random play on a CD player. Also, it does not come prepackaged with sounds or music, so you'll have to hunt around your existing files or find some online.

And I love the origin of their name.

This is what happens when I have time to re-think...

So, I have the schools of magic separated into Arcane and Divine schools. Under the Divine heading, currently, I have Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, and Necromancy. Arcane has Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, and Transmutation.

Last night, I decided it made more sense to have Necromancy draw from Constitution for mana instead of Faith. I also began asking the question, again, of whether it should be an Arcane school instead. There are arguments both ways, since it was established pretty soundly that in order to be a "true" Necromancer, you'd have to take both Cleric and Wizard in 3rd Edition. Evil Clerics could Rebuke and Command undead, and got some undead creation and manipulation, including the Cause X Wounds spells, which heal their created and controlled minions. Wizards, despite being able to specialize in Necromancy and having access to various negative energy spells such as Vampiric Touch, didn't have much that would allow them to build and control an undead army. Since I've put everything together into the different schools, though, a Necromancer in my game would have (what I think) all the abilities a Necromancer should have access to.

But that still doesn't tell me whether it should be Arcane or Divine in origin.

If I were to make it Arcane, that would mean I had 3 Divine and 5 Arcane schools, instead of 4 of each. I don't know if that would truly be an issue, for balance or other reasons. I had moved Abjuration to Divine only somewhat recently, in order to make the number even, since it made sense that the school dealing with shielding and protection would be more Divine-based (although I guess that depends both on your view of the gods and the views of your god). I could move it back, since the two groups would be asymmetrical anyway, which would give Mage Armor back to Arcane casters, or I could move another Arcane group to Divine instead.

The Arcane schools that I could most easily see becoming Divine (aside from Necromancy) are Enchantment and Transmutation. Enchantment holds most of the iconic benediction spells, such as Bless, but then every school has spells that were originally divine, including Evocation (Flame Strike). Transmutation, though it does have some very iconic Arcane/Wizard spells, is primarily based around enhancement spells at low levels.

Or, I could scrap this whole Divine/Arcane debate entirely. Several campaign settings have already decided that ALL magic comes from the gods, in one way or another. I could simply state that there is no appreciable difference between them.

Any input on this would be appreciated.

Step by step, inch by inch...

I now have a "course description" document (22 pages long) that does a fair job, I think, of explaining the various classes and class segments I have available in the game. There are a couple of classes which don't have all the details in that listing, due to the expected rarity of the classes and the fact that they essentially have their own spell lists and that would just be way too much to put in there.

My next project, I think, is to finally get around to a full list of equipment that isn't weaponry or armor. Which means I'm getting closer to needing a campaign idea to kick things off with.

New Class: Wild Caster

Just designed the basic concept behind a new class I'm currently calling Wild Caster. The idea is that they do not learn or memorize spells. Instead, they can attempt to cast any arcane-based spell, with a percentage chance of it either working, casting a random spell from the same school of magic, casting a random spell from a random school, or the energy fizzling entirely.

Actually, now that I think of it, I could add a 5th option: the energy backfires and deals damage to the caster.

At any rate, if I remember correctly this is similar to a concept that I've heard previous gamers express a desire to see implemented. Initial reaction?

Racial Benefits

Prior editions of D&D gave various bonuses to the different races when it came to class. Some classes were even limited to certain races. I have some Combat Proficiencies like that, but so far none of my classes are race-restricted. However, I just recently considered the option of giving a reduced experience cost to certain classes, based on race. At this point I'm not sure how much of a bonus it should be, or if it's even truly desirable as an aspect of the game. I would like to include some sort of technical variance due to race, but I could just include the bonuses based on size and the different types of vision and be done with it. Thoughts?

Death and Dying

I found some RPG discussion forums today, and through them came across someone else's house rules for death and dying here. Essentially, it increases the amount below zero a character's hit points can go to before the character is dead, allows normal healing spells to work on a character that has died within 24 hours of death, and removes the ability to bring the dead back to life beyond that timespan completely.

While I understand not liking the revolving door of death, I'm not sure I'm ready to remove those spells just yet, and I don't know that I like normal curing spells bringing someone back from the dead, even at less than 24 hours, without the formerly-deceased also needing something to restore their mental faculties after their brain has been without oxygenated blood for so long. I dunno, I guess that might fall under the same healing spell.

I do like the idea of changing the amount below zero, though, for much the same reason as the person expresses: it reduces the lethality of a higher-level battle, where any hit sufficient to drop your character to negatives is also likely to kill outright. It also makes characters or NPCs with less than 10 hp a bit more realistic. That goblin with 4 hp and your 20 Con, 3rd level Fighter both need to hit -10 to die?

That said, I think making the "death threshold" equal to the inverse of the maximum hp is a bit much. I'm thinking more like half would be reasonable, and allow a bit more wiggle room without making it nigh-impossible to kill anyone at higher levels.

So, a third level fighter with a max of 30 hp gets dropped to -3 from a nasty critical hit. They make a save to resist falling unconscious. If successful, they are awake but still disabled, so they can't move as quick and anything more strenuous than talking causes them to take a point of damage. Unless they get their wound bound or stabilize on their own, they also take a point of damage each round, and if they do get bound it will reopen and need to be bound/stabilized again if they take any strenuous action. On top of that, any time they take damage, they have to resist passing out again. A couple of rounds resisting oblivion and still trying to fend off the enemy puts the fighter at -15. Unless help arrives swiftly, next round they'll die from blood loss.

This is extremely theatrical, allowing scenes similar to Boromir's last stand. I'll probably end up using it.

Captain, our shields are weakening!

In my present system, armor is capable of being damaged. It doesn't give less protection or fall off unless all of its hit points are gone (Even I knew that would be too much work), but it does have hit points, and its own damage reduction in the form of hardness, based on the thickness and material.

This means, though, that I need to keep track of a slew of different armor classes for the same character. I need to know what is needed to hit them directly, to hit their armor and/or shield if they have one, as well as the difference in their AC if they are surprised and therefore don't get their Dex bonus. If it hits the armor, damage is rolled to see if it gets past the hardness to damage the armor. Same for the shield, if there is one. If it hits the character, then unless it was some force effect that bypasses normal armor, it also might damage the armor.

Now, I could just roll the attack, tell the player what it is, and make them do all the work as to what it hit. Except I like theatrics, and heightening suspense, so instead I keep track of these numbers, make a Perception check for the character, and then tell the player whether their character thinks it will hit or miss. That's their cue to determine what defensive action, if any, they want to take. True, this may mean they waste some resources in defending an attack that would only have hit their armor, or that a failed Perception check could make them think they're safe only to have them take a solid hit. But, that's battle for you.

In an automated game, all this number-crunching would be handled behind the scenes in a matter of seconds, if that. In pen&paper, it's not so easy. Now that I've created this monster of a system, I'm concerned that it will end up being more trouble than it's worth, bogging down combat in a way that isn't fun, rather than adding theatrics and suspense. But removing it means I'll need to rework my armor list to re-balance it, since the hardness and hit points of armor was one of the balancing factors.

Thoughts?

Arcane, Divine, or something else?

Having split all of the available magic into the different schools, regardless of originating class, I realize now that I've blurred the Arcane/Divine division regarding the origin of magic. Some of the schools, like Conjuration and Necromancy, have a very definite Divine feel to them, though most of the benedictions Clerics got are now in Enchantment, and almost all their attack spells got dropped into Evocation.

Transmutation, as a school, has the most spells of any of them, with Evocation in second place, but the most expensive schools (in terms of experience cost for leveling) are Conjuration (because it has both summoning and healing) and Necromancy (because it can allow the caster to build an army of undead). These mostly reflect my preferences, I guess, which I picked up from my mother: I don't like messing with temporary pets/creatures, especially ones that can be changed with every casting. This is why I've replaced pretty much all the Conjurer's Summon Monster/Nature's Ally/whatever spells with one-shot, full-round summoning spells, FFTactics style. The entity bamfs in, does its thing, and bamfs out, end of discussion. Since it's summoning, not creation, this works and allows a Conjurer to summon things that do stuff outside the Conjuration school. Necromancy has a couple of modified spells tossed in to make it more like what it should be, in my opinion, but it's creation and not summoning which means I still have the temporary pet issue.

Back on track: the splitting of the schools means that some of my previous information, such as Arcane Spell Failure, is now either defunct or applies to a lot more than it used to. How do I deal with this?

Next up: Armor deterioration - Is it worth the hassle in a pen & paper venue?