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.

Staring back at myself

Sometimes I just have to stare something in the face long enough before I can see it.

Sorcery is Arcane.  Ritualism is Divine.  The four schools that were under each are combined into one skill.

Is this a perfect balance?  Well, no.  Transmutation as a spell group has always dominated the list by the sheer number of spells it has.  As it is, I'll be going through the Arcana Unearthed spells and redistributing them as I feel appropriate.  Because I can do that.  And I'll probably add in a few here and there that I really liked the flavor of (probably a good deal from the Arcanis system).  And I'll remove the typical summoning spells, replacing them with my preferred one-shot summons, and that by itself should help balance between the two groupings.

Spellcraft as a skill would allow access to more complex magics from the other magical discipline (skill in either discipline would give access to the simple spells from any school).  Exotic spells from your own discipline could be learned at ranks 3, 6, and 9, and more could be learned (from either discipline) through the use of Combat Proficiencies.

Unrelated quick thought: Base exotic weapon proficiency on a new Weaponmaster skill - each rank gives access to the exotic weapons of a different basic group (polearms, heavy blades, etc.), chosen by the player upon placing points in the skill.

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.

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.

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.

Class Building Blocks: Lego or Duplo?

Seeing 41 different options on my current character class list is a lot less impressive than it should be. First off, a character without any special starting abilities, like being an awakened psion or of a particular bloodline, only has access to 35 of those options. Further, a lot of the things listed on the "Class" list are more like Class fragments. Magic has been broken up into its various Schools, and each School is taken individually. Some of the iconic abilities of various classes have been stripped away from the class, and divided up into smaller packages.

For instance, the Paladin abilities such as Detect Evil and Lay on Hands are now distributed amongst Crusader, Temple Knight, and Faith Healer. These "fragments" have a lower experience cost if taken alone, obviously, but the idea is that you can build your own adventurer. One of the fragments is simply an extra starting combat proficiency, which could be anything from another weapon proficiency to metamagic. Some of the fragments are levelable, improvable crafting "classes" such as Bowyer, Armorer, and Alchemist.

And, one is simply a "Citizen" class: no abilities, no special stuff, you get the benefits inherent to your ability scores. That was mostly just to give me something I can use for NPCs, but it could be fun to start a group off as Citizens and have them progress to other classes and abilities through training.

The image I have in my head of how all this should work seems good: a mix between a class-based and a skill-based game with enough variance and limiters that not every character is going to be able to do everything, but will have more varied abilities than a typical character in a class-based system.

I still need to finish separating the magic into schools, to make it easier to roll them, and I still need to determine a setting, at least a small area to start in. Then comes the fun part.

Game Projects

Skill System...........................Done

Spell System..........................Done

Crafting System.....................Done

Class System..........................Done

Spell List...............................Done

Weapon List..........................Done

Armor List.............................Done

Other Equipment Lists...........Umm... no.

Combat System......................Done

Campaign Setting..................In Review

Campaign Ideas....................Way too many

Run Playtest.exe (y/N)? y

Starting Playtest.exe.........Error! Setting.ini not found! Abort, Retry, Fail?

*sigh*

Fail.

Typing to hear myself think

After discussing skill systems late last night with my conscripted playtester, it seems that a simple stat-based system which does not use skill points would be preferable over a stat-based system that uses minimal skill points or a percentage based, customizable improvement system. While this certainly makes things easier for me, it was a bit of a surprise since he had some time ago argued for the ability to improve skills through training. I should probably ask him again sometime when he isn't falling asleep at the computer.

I'm also considering an a la carte system for character creation, which would essentially allow players to create their own class. Magic is already divided into different schools, so that's easy enough. I can strip the special class-based abilities away from the classes, and either offer them as-is to be added on, or figure out a value for each ability to allow further customization. This could be an additional method on top of keeping the regular classes, maybe with the regular classes having a lesser experience cost to level than they would if broken into their individual abilities.

On the surface, this looks like it would make things more difficult or make creation take longer, but it would also allow me to take a new player, ask them what they want to be able to do, and put together a conglomeration of abilities that would approximate their desires.

I do have ideas for making individual schools of magic based on different stats for learning and casting. This would be a way for dedicated spellcasters to have more casting ability despite the static mana system, since different types of spells may draw from different resources.

I'm also considering the option of allowing some method of choosing spells, instead of having them random by default, since the sheer number of spells I have compiled makes it statistically daunting for a cleric to get any healing spells. This could change if schools of magic were taken a la carte, though. Something to keep in mind.

Cunning is Confusing

In reconsidering a skill system, I'd come across the fact that I don't have a lot tied to the Cunning stat, and so was considering whether it should be kept. It plays a part in Psionics, and I had previously set it to determine how many fighting skills a Fighter would get per level. After some review, and re-reading the dictionary definition, I'm not sure the latter use is appropriate.

Cunning is this strange conglomeration, made up of aspects of the other mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Bluffing or conning someone, or feinting in combat are good examples of using Cunning. Seducing someone could be Cunning mixed with Charisma, as would (potentially) disguising yourself or acting out a role. A master tactician would be intelligent (having learned about tactics and studied them in history), wise (know your enemy, know yourself), and also cunning (applying strategies in unpredictable ways, developing new techniques). Cunning seems to be concerned with the application of these other abilities (Int, Wis, Cha) in base, predatory ways, while preventing others from knowing what you're up to.

Despite the closely-tied nature of these stats, though, it's obvious that a highly developed Cunning can exist even without Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Goblins and Bugbears are frequently considered cunning, despite not being the brightest or most beautiful. Captain Jack Sparrow showed a great deal of cunning, and had some Charisma to back it up, but was not portrayed as the most wise or intelligent individual.

As a character stat, it's difficult to pin down what exactly Cunning should (or should not) affect. I considered the option of having Cunning directly affect the amount of extra damage dealt by a Sneak Attack, but one of my players expressed the opinion that the ability to strike vulnerable areas is a learned skill and should therefore be improvable. I could make another Combat Proficiency which would allow for that.

My wife mentioned the possibility of Cunning as a skill, rather than a stat, making the argument that one's shrewdness and guile could be practiced and improved. The question there would be, though, what would Cunning, as a skill, do? Most of what we came up with would cause it to affect other skills, rather than do something on its own like the other skills.

Still exploring possibilities with this.

Skills in 3rd Edition

While the skills system (intended as an improvement over the non-weapon proficiencies and non-combat class skills from earlier versions) can be handy, it can also be cumbersome. Feat and skill selection are the two most time-consuming aspects of character creation in 3rd edition, especially for a new player who isn't familiar with what feats are available, or doesn't know what certain skills do or their importance.

The biggest bonus of having a skill system, rather than basing all skill checks off of stat checks, is that it allows the character to improve based upon what they want to train. The system, as presented in 3rd Ed., reflects the idea that training, rather than natural talent, is the key to success when it comes to any given ability. Climbing, for example, is based on Strength. A strong character will have a minor advantage over an average-strength character, given equal ranks in the Climb skill. If the strong character hasn't put any skill points into Climb, though, and the average one has maxed his ranks, then the average character will probably climb better starting at level one, and will continue getting better each level.

This system doesn't make as much sense for some skills, and at some point it becomes rather difficult to suspend disbelief since there is no cap to how high a skill can be improved. My biggest issue, though, is that skill points are not based directly off of Intelligence. A high Int helps, but your base skill points are determined by your class. This was another way WotC tried to establish a "balance" between the classes, or just perpetuate stereotypes. Rogues get the most skill points, with bards coming in next. Wizards and Clerics hardly get any, though the high Intelligence most Wizards have helps to off-set this.

Different classes have their access to certain skills restricted, by means of making certain skills class related ("class skills") or non-class related ("cross-class skills"). Of course, these are based on your class, with Rogues, again, having most skills as class skills, and clerics and wizards receiving very few class skills. Cross-class skills require double the skill points to improve, so despite the boost to points that a high Int gives wizards, they still don't manage to go very far. I suppose the idea is that all the time studying spells or worshiping a deity doesn't allow for much in the way of hobbies, but again it seems arbitrary in a non-logical way.

Distributing skill points is a pain. But the other option is making skills based off of a stat check. Want to climb something? Roll the dice, and hope the total is less than your Strength. Simple, but it leaves little room for improvement. It might not be as important to improve things like Climbing, but you want your rogue to be able to pick any lock or disarm any trap the party comes across. As things progress, harder and harder challenges will come along, but if a thief is no better at doing thief-y things by 5th level than he was at 1st, what was the point of being a thief?

I like the concept that any given character, regardless of class, might be good at a particular skill: a fighter who is an expert in sleight of hand, a cleric who knows how to pick a lock, a wizard who is also an accomplished songwriter. The class at risk of losing the most, in such a system, is the thief or rogue: If anyone can pick a lock or disarm a trap, why even have a thief class?

So there needs to be a way of improving things. Do I mandate which skills improve, or do I find a way to allot points to be distributed by the player? If it's player distributed, you might still end up with a wizard who's as good or better than a thief at the iconic tasks. The main difference, I suppose, would be the combat training. A thief gets to backstab/sneak attack, and has some other minor combat abilities, while the mage has spells to sling.