d20 Open RPG is now d20 Threshold!
Or rather, just Threshold for short. Blog and site names are changed, lots of updates to the site and rules, playtest form posted... lots of newness!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
In response...
First to this post:
Keith takes the time to discuss the Threshold treatment of Resources, Races, and Allegiances.
Resources:
Yes, Threshold uses an abstract wealth/resources system taken from/inspired by d20 Modern and the game system E20 being developed by Gary Sarli, one of the original creators of Star Wars Saga Edition.
Personally I'm not a massive fan of the abstract concept when it comes to wealth and goods but I don't really see a better way have having one system that can apply equally well to any setting or time frame. Abstracting it allows for this. I'm still not 100% sold on the implementation but its a start.
Races/Templates:
One thing you may have noticed is that my development style is somewhat scattered. I work on one area until I get bored with it then I switch to some other part of the system needing attention. Sometimes the changes I make to one area require swinging back around and updating parts I had worked on previously. The races/templates section has seen little attention for some time since I had been focusing a lot of time on the combat and talents area. This part of the rules is half one way and half another way lol
Allegiance:
Yes, another grab from d20 Modern (and other systems.) I've never been a fan of Alignments and the Allegiances system is much more appealing.
Next Keith looks over Archetypes in a bit more detail here:
First Keith is a bit concerned about possible harshness of his review. I want to make clear that I don't have a problem with negative feedback. In fact, I get more out of negative feedback than I do good. The only time I would have an issue is if the feedback was presented rudely or in a not-helpful manner, which Keith certainly doesn't have a problem with.
The point evaluations listed on that page are not "here is what we think things are worth" but is instead "hmm how much would it cost to create Class X using this new system?" and then I look it over after the fact and say "hmm ok, this one is whack" or "ok I like this one" and then when all is said and done I take that info and then reconsider the cost of the various talents and former class features. Again though, this is a section of the rules I haven't given much attention to in some time.
One of the concerns Keith mentions regarding the Talents though is the potential to buy up one part of a character while neglecting others, such that a character can become either too powerful, or too weak, either intentionally or accidentally. This is true that it is a risk of a more granular system certainly. However, the main method of attempting to limit this is the idea of separating Talents into separate levels and then limiting the number of each a character can have. For instance (making this up at the moment) if a PC gets (3) minor and (1) standard talents at every even level, and then the same plus (1) major talent at every odd level, then the player is limited in the ways he can go wrong. On a separate note, my system right now is "additive" in that at each level the character gets "more" but I want to pull back from that somewhat/somehow. While I want PC's to get more things they can do over time, I don't want it to grow to the extent that PC's in D&D/PF do. I'm thinking now it might be additive plus an incremental "rebuild" meaning, at every 5th (or 4th or whatever) level, a player may trade X number of Minor Talents for X (- some number) of the next step up, as long as the newly gained Talents are associated in some way. The requirement of association is an idea to maintain verisimilitude.. in that the PC isn't suddenly forgetting things he has used many times in exchange for all new things not remotely related to the PC previously.
Separate note: The comment Keith made on BAB automatically increasing but not being a Standard Talent is a very good catch. I'm examining how I want to address this.
Ok, that's all I have time for now. Thanks Keith for the detailed look at where I'm at and where I need to spend some time cleaning up!
Keith takes the time to discuss the Threshold treatment of Resources, Races, and Allegiances.
Resources:
Yes, Threshold uses an abstract wealth/resources system taken from/inspired by d20 Modern and the game system E20 being developed by Gary Sarli, one of the original creators of Star Wars Saga Edition.
Personally I'm not a massive fan of the abstract concept when it comes to wealth and goods but I don't really see a better way have having one system that can apply equally well to any setting or time frame. Abstracting it allows for this. I'm still not 100% sold on the implementation but its a start.
Races/Templates:
One thing you may have noticed is that my development style is somewhat scattered. I work on one area until I get bored with it then I switch to some other part of the system needing attention. Sometimes the changes I make to one area require swinging back around and updating parts I had worked on previously. The races/templates section has seen little attention for some time since I had been focusing a lot of time on the combat and talents area. This part of the rules is half one way and half another way lol
Allegiance:
Yes, another grab from d20 Modern (and other systems.) I've never been a fan of Alignments and the Allegiances system is much more appealing.
Next Keith looks over Archetypes in a bit more detail here:
First Keith is a bit concerned about possible harshness of his review. I want to make clear that I don't have a problem with negative feedback. In fact, I get more out of negative feedback than I do good. The only time I would have an issue is if the feedback was presented rudely or in a not-helpful manner, which Keith certainly doesn't have a problem with.
The point evaluations listed on that page are not "here is what we think things are worth" but is instead "hmm how much would it cost to create Class X using this new system?" and then I look it over after the fact and say "hmm ok, this one is whack" or "ok I like this one" and then when all is said and done I take that info and then reconsider the cost of the various talents and former class features. Again though, this is a section of the rules I haven't given much attention to in some time.
One of the concerns Keith mentions regarding the Talents though is the potential to buy up one part of a character while neglecting others, such that a character can become either too powerful, or too weak, either intentionally or accidentally. This is true that it is a risk of a more granular system certainly. However, the main method of attempting to limit this is the idea of separating Talents into separate levels and then limiting the number of each a character can have. For instance (making this up at the moment) if a PC gets (3) minor and (1) standard talents at every even level, and then the same plus (1) major talent at every odd level, then the player is limited in the ways he can go wrong. On a separate note, my system right now is "additive" in that at each level the character gets "more" but I want to pull back from that somewhat/somehow. While I want PC's to get more things they can do over time, I don't want it to grow to the extent that PC's in D&D/PF do. I'm thinking now it might be additive plus an incremental "rebuild" meaning, at every 5th (or 4th or whatever) level, a player may trade X number of Minor Talents for X (- some number) of the next step up, as long as the newly gained Talents are associated in some way. The requirement of association is an idea to maintain verisimilitude.. in that the PC isn't suddenly forgetting things he has used many times in exchange for all new things not remotely related to the PC previously.
Separate note: The comment Keith made on BAB automatically increasing but not being a Standard Talent is a very good catch. I'm examining how I want to address this.
Ok, that's all I have time for now. Thanks Keith for the detailed look at where I'm at and where I need to spend some time cleaning up!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Echelon d20
I first came across Keith's various blog posts and articles years ago while browsing rec.games.frp.dnd and always really liked the depth of detail his ideas went to. When I read his posts and ideas I thought "This guy has got great ideas, and see's some of the same "issues" I see with 3.x" For a long time I'd randomly pop in and see what he's been working on and I see that Echelon d20 is coming along nicely. Anyway, on to the comments re: Echelon.
First, the page http://www.echelond20.org/
Keith explains some of the basic reasons for Echelon as well as explaining the idea behind the name Echelon. I really don't have much to say here other than "ditto" (meaning, I pretty much agree with everything said.)
Moving on to http://www.echelond20.org/introduction/vision-of-echelon/
First he talks about the systemic failures of 3.x and what he wants. Basically, I want the same things but my only concern is the statement "I want characters who are not spellcasters to have comparable abilities and power." The fact is, I do too. However, the actual act of accomplishing that is extremely tricky because you can easily end up with super-anime non-magic-using characters, meaning, they aren't using magic, yet their doing fantastic things that just aren't possible "in the real world." There's a very fine balancing act to be performed when trying to make "non-magic" types be able to do things on par with those who reshape reality. Some players (and GM's) simply can't accept a joe-normal former soldier suddenly able to leap tall buildings by "something that isn't magic yet basically is because its doing things only magic would allow" etc. So, the trick is, finding out that line that makes non-magic types much more critical and effective at higher power levels, while not just basically making them the same as the spell users but just not calling them spell users.
The other sentence, "I want mundane skills and abilities to be as fantastic as spell casting, and not trumped by spell use." Again, I agree with the premise and goal, but the actual act of getting there will be complicated. One way you could do this is to power up skills so that they can do amazing things. Another way is to power down any spells that do something close to what a skill normally can do. Or, you can do a little of both. I probably will be doing something where spells can help tweak skills, but at the same time I kind of plan to de-emphasize "specific" skills. What I mean is that I will probably be leaving many "skill-type" actions somewhat open-ended in that the GM and the player's have some latitude in determining how they wish to attempt that skill. For example, players will be encouraged to think of ways that their ability scores can affect the outcome of whatever is being attempted. Instead of looking at their character sheet, seeing no ranks in "the skill I need" and then not doing anything, the player is always encouraged to instead look at his character sheet, think about the situation his PC is in, and then ask the GM a few questions, and then if the GM decides the Ability Score could be applicable, the player can apply that ability score modifier. Ok, too much detail for this post :)
Keith then goes on and talks about "Failures of D&D Part 2, Application Failures" such as prep time for running games, reduce and streamline some defining attributes of threats and encounters, and the overall goal of reducing complexity. I haven't had time to get too in depth in Echelon to see how well these goals are met but suffice to say we share the same goals here.
Create a Generic System
Keith explains that it wasn't originally a goal to create a generic system but that his work could probably be easily adapted to such a system. By contrast, I am setting out from the very beginning to create a genre/setting-neutral game system. A key belief I have is that if one develops a clean enough system, it doesn't matter what the setting is. The core mechanics should apply equally well to any setting or genre.
Moving on to http://www.echelond20.org/core-rules/basics/
Keith beings talking about "Why Classless" and I agree on all points. Well, mostly I suppose. He says that he allows for some "lesser" versions of some Talents whereas Threshold attempts to clearly delineate out what can be gained by the four different "levels" of Talents (Minor, Standard, Major, Epic.) Specifically, a Minor Talent should never give a modifier greater than +2 and the modifier never changes over time. It is a set, fixed value. Standard Talents give bonuses that grow with the PC as he gains experience. Note this is only discussing Talents that actually give "bonuses" or modifiers to rolls. Some Talents do no such thing, but the concept is the same, a Minor Talent will always be limited to some small perk, a Standard provides some ability that gets better by itself over time, etc. Also, a key concept of Threshold is the idea of degrees of success and failure providing more or less of what the PC wants. Virtually everything works the same way and so a "lesser" form of a Talent wouldn't really do anything that rolling lower on a check with a normal Talent would.
Keith then discusses "Why Level-based?" and I agree 100%.
"Why Talents?" - Again, we're in lock-step.
I then moved on to http://www.echelond20.org/core-rules/basics/talent-slots/
Thoughts: I like it but think there are too many tiers. I'd cap it at 4 and go with the standard levels of 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.
Ok, I just realized I failed to respond to something in the previous post. I guess I'm done enough here for now!
First, the page http://www.echelond20.org/
Keith explains some of the basic reasons for Echelon as well as explaining the idea behind the name Echelon. I really don't have much to say here other than "ditto" (meaning, I pretty much agree with everything said.)
Moving on to http://www.echelond20.org/introduction/vision-of-echelon/
First he talks about the systemic failures of 3.x and what he wants. Basically, I want the same things but my only concern is the statement "I want characters who are not spellcasters to have comparable abilities and power." The fact is, I do too. However, the actual act of accomplishing that is extremely tricky because you can easily end up with super-anime non-magic-using characters, meaning, they aren't using magic, yet their doing fantastic things that just aren't possible "in the real world." There's a very fine balancing act to be performed when trying to make "non-magic" types be able to do things on par with those who reshape reality. Some players (and GM's) simply can't accept a joe-normal former soldier suddenly able to leap tall buildings by "something that isn't magic yet basically is because its doing things only magic would allow" etc. So, the trick is, finding out that line that makes non-magic types much more critical and effective at higher power levels, while not just basically making them the same as the spell users but just not calling them spell users.
The other sentence, "I want mundane skills and abilities to be as fantastic as spell casting, and not trumped by spell use." Again, I agree with the premise and goal, but the actual act of getting there will be complicated. One way you could do this is to power up skills so that they can do amazing things. Another way is to power down any spells that do something close to what a skill normally can do. Or, you can do a little of both. I probably will be doing something where spells can help tweak skills, but at the same time I kind of plan to de-emphasize "specific" skills. What I mean is that I will probably be leaving many "skill-type" actions somewhat open-ended in that the GM and the player's have some latitude in determining how they wish to attempt that skill. For example, players will be encouraged to think of ways that their ability scores can affect the outcome of whatever is being attempted. Instead of looking at their character sheet, seeing no ranks in "the skill I need" and then not doing anything, the player is always encouraged to instead look at his character sheet, think about the situation his PC is in, and then ask the GM a few questions, and then if the GM decides the Ability Score could be applicable, the player can apply that ability score modifier. Ok, too much detail for this post :)
Keith then goes on and talks about "Failures of D&D Part 2, Application Failures" such as prep time for running games, reduce and streamline some defining attributes of threats and encounters, and the overall goal of reducing complexity. I haven't had time to get too in depth in Echelon to see how well these goals are met but suffice to say we share the same goals here.
Create a Generic System
Keith explains that it wasn't originally a goal to create a generic system but that his work could probably be easily adapted to such a system. By contrast, I am setting out from the very beginning to create a genre/setting-neutral game system. A key belief I have is that if one develops a clean enough system, it doesn't matter what the setting is. The core mechanics should apply equally well to any setting or genre.
Moving on to http://www.echelond20.org/core-rules/basics/
Keith beings talking about "Why Classless" and I agree on all points. Well, mostly I suppose. He says that he allows for some "lesser" versions of some Talents whereas Threshold attempts to clearly delineate out what can be gained by the four different "levels" of Talents (Minor, Standard, Major, Epic.) Specifically, a Minor Talent should never give a modifier greater than +2 and the modifier never changes over time. It is a set, fixed value. Standard Talents give bonuses that grow with the PC as he gains experience. Note this is only discussing Talents that actually give "bonuses" or modifiers to rolls. Some Talents do no such thing, but the concept is the same, a Minor Talent will always be limited to some small perk, a Standard provides some ability that gets better by itself over time, etc. Also, a key concept of Threshold is the idea of degrees of success and failure providing more or less of what the PC wants. Virtually everything works the same way and so a "lesser" form of a Talent wouldn't really do anything that rolling lower on a check with a normal Talent would.
Keith then discusses "Why Level-based?" and I agree 100%.
"Why Talents?" - Again, we're in lock-step.
I then moved on to http://www.echelond20.org/core-rules/basics/talent-slots/
Thoughts: I like it but think there are too many tiers. I'd cap it at 4 and go with the standard levels of 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.
Ok, I just realized I failed to respond to something in the previous post. I guess I'm done enough here for now!
Ok, now that I have some free time...
Wow, Keith doesn't play around. Lot's of great comments and observations over at http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-characters/ and http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-introduction-part-2/ so I'll try to respond here quickly then do the counter-review I had promised previously.
First, in response to http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-introduction-part-2/
I'm going to skip right past all the parts where I am just nodding my head in approval until I get to a point that I think needs a bit of explanation on my part.
The first part that meets that criteria is, "cyclic initiative based on Action Point cost." I thought of that. I've toyed with the notion internally many times. I personally do like it, and think it would bring a very interesting element to the game, but I suspect that it might be too much of a "shock to the system" for some players. I might try to include some optional sidebar rules for trying it though.
The next part that meets that criteria is the discussion of the Combat Assistance sheets. Obviously the name and exact details are up in the air at the moment but the idea is a simple, half-sheet piece of paper that has some visual indicators of actions and costs and a way for people to quickly and easily visualize their options. My first idea was some sort of abacus-like contraption with beads that you slide from side to side to indicate what you are "spending" your action points on but that quickly fell away as I realized it just wasn't practical on many levels. Then I started thinking about a wooden tray like is used in the game Mancala that has divots for holding beads/counters. The idea again being, you move something physical from one place to another and you could easily look down and say "I have 3 beads in the Act pool and 2 beads in the Move pool." But then, for basically the same reasons, that idea was replaced by a simple printed piece of paper with three main areas, one area for each main thing you can do in a round (ie, perform some sort of action, or move) and one area for an "unassigned" pool. The player could then use the points/tokens/beads/scratch marks on paper that are "in" that pool, to either add to a roll, or to add to a defense value. The player gets to choose from round to round how/where to allocate his action points (or tokens/beads/whatever etc.) Having the "unassigned" pool in the middle is a quick and easy way to see what he can do still. I have other thoughts floating around in my gray matter about other interesting ways to tap into that pool and things the player can do with them but right now its just conceptual.
Keith then rightly mentions his concern about being "too brief" in the sheets, but the main idea is that the sheets should indicate in very clear terms the most COMMON actions or movement type options that can be performed. Of course there would be further rules for describing more complex actions, but the Combat Assistance sheets should be able to assist with 90%+ of the normal actions in a combat.
Movement Points and Fatigue - Yeah, in flux, but in short, I have high hopes for the concept. Its pretty neat if I do say so myself, but the little details are a pain to hash out.
Ok, enough on that. Now onto his other post....
http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-characters/
Race/Template: Right, basically a "race" is not much more than a package of not-really-changing traits that all (or most) members of that "race" share.
Archetypes: Meant to be a time-saver for those who don't have either the time or interest to create complex characters. They are also meant to serve as a "proving ground" where I can go back and attempt to reassemble something resembling a "fighter" or a "wizard" etc. and see how close I can get. Ideally I'd like to stick relatively close to the general power level and number of abilities a 1st level character in Pathfinder/3.x gets, but ultimately I don't want that number of abilities to grow anywhere close to what you end up with in high-level play in Pathfinder/3.x. This is why I need to explore the Echelon Talents system more closely. The simplistic way of doing it is just to say that a player replaces abilities over time instead of adding abilities. That way the overall number of different abilities doesn't become so absurd that its impossible to remember everything a character can do each round. However, I deeply dislike that concept simply because it breaks verisimilitude too much for my tastes.
Hit Points: Yes, in essence a Wounds/Vitality concept. Right now what I call "Base Hit Points" are the physical meat and flesh and blood of the PC. "Bonus Hit Points" or what I'm likely to call them instead, "Fate Points" represent a characters luck/skill/whatever in avoiding actually shedding blood and coming in contact with sharp things. These points recover quickly, whereas Base Hit Points take a long time to recover. I won't go into more detail on that here since its all in fairly deep detail on the site.
Saving Throws: Are up in the air in the sense that I'm toying with using the Star Wars Saga (and 4E) concept of simply having them be defensive values that things "attack." My initial feelings on that when I first started playing 4E and Star Wars was "blech- I hate this" but its grown on me over time, most especially from a game design perspective. It streamlines various contradictory mechanics (contradictory in that in most cases the acting party makes an attack vs. a defending party, but in the case of "whatever needs a saving throw" the defending party makes a roll to resist (or avoid) the thing attacking it. So from a rules consistency perspective it just seems cleaner to have them all work the same way etc.
Experience Points: Yep. Out the window. I've played long enough that I don't see the point in tracking them and I really don't want to be in the business of telling one player he roleplayed his character better than the other player did. For simplicity sake I just tell everyone "you'll probably gain a level about every 3 sessions or so" and then if I want to speed that up or slow it down a tad based on what's happening right then, I just do.
Universal Advancement Table: Yep, its an artifact from the earliest stages of development. I do plan/intend to keep some semblance of it, but its not much use at the moment.
Edit: I did realize after the fact that I wanted to reply to this quote
Whew! Ok, on to that other thing now!
First, in response to http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-introduction-part-2/
I'm going to skip right past all the parts where I am just nodding my head in approval until I get to a point that I think needs a bit of explanation on my part.
The first part that meets that criteria is, "cyclic initiative based on Action Point cost." I thought of that. I've toyed with the notion internally many times. I personally do like it, and think it would bring a very interesting element to the game, but I suspect that it might be too much of a "shock to the system" for some players. I might try to include some optional sidebar rules for trying it though.
The next part that meets that criteria is the discussion of the Combat Assistance sheets. Obviously the name and exact details are up in the air at the moment but the idea is a simple, half-sheet piece of paper that has some visual indicators of actions and costs and a way for people to quickly and easily visualize their options. My first idea was some sort of abacus-like contraption with beads that you slide from side to side to indicate what you are "spending" your action points on but that quickly fell away as I realized it just wasn't practical on many levels. Then I started thinking about a wooden tray like is used in the game Mancala that has divots for holding beads/counters. The idea again being, you move something physical from one place to another and you could easily look down and say "I have 3 beads in the Act pool and 2 beads in the Move pool." But then, for basically the same reasons, that idea was replaced by a simple printed piece of paper with three main areas, one area for each main thing you can do in a round (ie, perform some sort of action, or move) and one area for an "unassigned" pool. The player could then use the points/tokens/beads/scratch marks on paper that are "in" that pool, to either add to a roll, or to add to a defense value. The player gets to choose from round to round how/where to allocate his action points (or tokens/beads/whatever etc.) Having the "unassigned" pool in the middle is a quick and easy way to see what he can do still. I have other thoughts floating around in my gray matter about other interesting ways to tap into that pool and things the player can do with them but right now its just conceptual.
Keith then rightly mentions his concern about being "too brief" in the sheets, but the main idea is that the sheets should indicate in very clear terms the most COMMON actions or movement type options that can be performed. Of course there would be further rules for describing more complex actions, but the Combat Assistance sheets should be able to assist with 90%+ of the normal actions in a combat.
Movement Points and Fatigue - Yeah, in flux, but in short, I have high hopes for the concept. Its pretty neat if I do say so myself, but the little details are a pain to hash out.
Ok, enough on that. Now onto his other post....
http://www.kjd-imc.org/2011/06/01/threshold-d20-review-characters/
Race/Template: Right, basically a "race" is not much more than a package of not-really-changing traits that all (or most) members of that "race" share.
Archetypes: Meant to be a time-saver for those who don't have either the time or interest to create complex characters. They are also meant to serve as a "proving ground" where I can go back and attempt to reassemble something resembling a "fighter" or a "wizard" etc. and see how close I can get. Ideally I'd like to stick relatively close to the general power level and number of abilities a 1st level character in Pathfinder/3.x gets, but ultimately I don't want that number of abilities to grow anywhere close to what you end up with in high-level play in Pathfinder/3.x. This is why I need to explore the Echelon Talents system more closely. The simplistic way of doing it is just to say that a player replaces abilities over time instead of adding abilities. That way the overall number of different abilities doesn't become so absurd that its impossible to remember everything a character can do each round. However, I deeply dislike that concept simply because it breaks verisimilitude too much for my tastes.
Hit Points: Yes, in essence a Wounds/Vitality concept. Right now what I call "Base Hit Points" are the physical meat and flesh and blood of the PC. "Bonus Hit Points" or what I'm likely to call them instead, "Fate Points" represent a characters luck/skill/whatever in avoiding actually shedding blood and coming in contact with sharp things. These points recover quickly, whereas Base Hit Points take a long time to recover. I won't go into more detail on that here since its all in fairly deep detail on the site.
Saving Throws: Are up in the air in the sense that I'm toying with using the Star Wars Saga (and 4E) concept of simply having them be defensive values that things "attack." My initial feelings on that when I first started playing 4E and Star Wars was "blech- I hate this" but its grown on me over time, most especially from a game design perspective. It streamlines various contradictory mechanics (contradictory in that in most cases the acting party makes an attack vs. a defending party, but in the case of "whatever needs a saving throw" the defending party makes a roll to resist (or avoid) the thing attacking it. So from a rules consistency perspective it just seems cleaner to have them all work the same way etc.
Experience Points: Yep. Out the window. I've played long enough that I don't see the point in tracking them and I really don't want to be in the business of telling one player he roleplayed his character better than the other player did. For simplicity sake I just tell everyone "you'll probably gain a level about every 3 sessions or so" and then if I want to speed that up or slow it down a tad based on what's happening right then, I just do.
Universal Advancement Table: Yep, its an artifact from the earliest stages of development. I do plan/intend to keep some semblance of it, but its not much use at the moment.
Edit: I did realize after the fact that I wanted to reply to this quote
"Without knowing exactly what the numbers mean these next comments may be completely wrong, but I’ll point out that Talent Points are gained at varying amounts per level (it looks like 2, 3, 2, 5… but I don’t know why – wouldn’t it be simpler to just give three per level?). The deviation at first level (15 points instead of a much smaller number) makes sense because you’re paying for fundamental bits."The initial idea was you get a big pile of Talents at character creation, then get a small amount each level thereafter. The idea of differing amounts at different levels was meant to allow for only being able to get higher powered (Major) Talents at odd levels. Meaning, if Major Talents cost 3 Talent Points to obtain, and you only get 3 points at each odd level, then you can only get a Major Talent at odd levels. This was sort of meant to follow the paradigm of D&D (several editions) where spell-casting ability increased notably at the odd levels (1st level you first get spells, 3rd level you get 2nd level spells, 5th level you get 3rd, etc. - same with some other familiar class abilities.)
Whew! Ok, on to that other thing now!
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Dueling Blogs!
Well not really :) But Keith Davies, creator of Echelond20.org came up with an idea where we'd do a sort of point/counterpoint or blog/counterblog stretch, somewhat comparing/contrasting Threshold d20 with Echelon d20. So, with that said, he's already off and running with two posts to my 0. First I'll respond to his posts with my thoughts, then I'll kind of do what he did, but for Echelon d20.
In this post he says "It seems to be closer to using Pathfinder System Resource Document (PFSRD) as a base than the System Resource Document (SRD) or Revised System Resource Document (RSRD) directly."
Well in truth yes, that's where I started, as in, from the Pathfinder revision of the various System Reference Documents. I wanted to have that as my baseline to build up/off from. Mainly because I could easily start with a snapshot of d20pfsrd.com and then strip away the parts I don't want as I go. It was really more of just a time-saver. Well that's not entirely true because initially I had intended to keep the various things that make Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. That meant keeping the Combat Maneuver mechanics and the newer revisions of all of the core spells etc. However, as development has proceeded, I have continued to strip away layers such that there really isn't much Pathfinder left in it. And ultimately, that's ok, because it turns out I really want something more fundamentally different than would be possible if I saddle myself with the requirement that it has to in some way look, or sound, or play, like Pathfinder. I've moved on now :)
Site Design is simple/clean
Well yeah but that's really more just because this is a virtual scratchpad at this point. So much of what I've had up has changed so much, so often, that dedicating any (or much) energy to presentation at this point would be a waste of effort.
What's New?
Well the "What's New?" sidebars were sort of a direct response to a request from site viewers who were having a hard time keeping up with my changes. I tried to add a quick summary of what was on the page, and a high-level overview of the significance of the rules associated.
In this post, Keith says, "Classes do have some design benefits, but there can be other approaches to the same design goals that avoid some of the problems experienced in D&D." And yes, I agree. Classes can make the development end of the game easier because it makes balancing powers and abilities easier by bundling good things with bad things so that each class is a self-contained package of "balance" by making the player take some things he doesn't care about in order to get the things he does. When I make a character I don't want to have to take feature B and C because I want feature A. I want feature A, and D. I won't go into too much detail but the point is, I personally want a more fine-grained character creation process.
Then, he says, "John’s use of ‘Action Point’ here is consistent with use from other games (a measure of how much an actor can or does do in his turn). Several d20 games use ‘Action Point’ to mean ‘extra mojo you can pull out when needed’. On the face of it ‘fine grained’ doesn’t suggest simplification to me. However, if it clarifies things it may make things simpler."
Yes, precisely. In Threshold, a player spends Action Points to perform Actions. They are the basic currency of combat. Virtually anything a player wants his character to do is done by spending some number of Action Points (generally ranging from 1 to 5.) So then the question becomes, does this make things easier? Obviously that remains to be seen but the biggest way I think it simplifies things is it removes the arbitrary terminology of Swift, Immediate, Standard, Complete, Full, in terms of Actions, and replaces each with a simple number. The idea is that by introducing a text layer in the equation it requires players to do a translation step in their heads. Meaning, the player must translate "Standard" action and "Complete" and "Full Round" and "Swift" into some sort of mental math to understand how much his character can perform.
The idea is that by removing that translation step and cutting straight to a numeric value, the player can more easily and quickly understand HOW much his PC can do. This will be made even easier once I roll out a preview of the Combat Assistant sheets. The concept now is that each player will have a half-sheet of paper in front of him with a diagram roughly similar to the old Van Halen logo, meaning, a flying V. The left side of the V is titled "Act", the middle of the V is titled "Option", and the right side of the V is titled "Move."
Beneath each Title are 5 rows. Each row includes 2-3 short summaries of what the player gets for his PC if he allocates his Action Points into that field. For instance, under "Move" there are 5 rows.
Row 1 - "1: Gain 1 MP"
Row 2 - "2: Gain (Speed) MP"
Row 3 - "3: Gain (Speed + Dex) MP"
Row 4 - "4: Gain (Speed x 2) MP"
Row 5 - "5: Gain (Speed + Dex) x3 MP"
Then, when the player is allocating his Action Points, if he is using tokens or counters, he can put two tokens on Row 2 under Move and know he can move his speed in movement one time. If, however, he put 4 counters on row 4, he could move his speed x2 in movement. The idea is that by using a physical representation of actions, as in tokens or counters, he can push them around the combat pad to easily see what he can do.
The middle of the V, the Option field, is a sort of "neutral" or "unassigned" field where counters sit until used. Remember, counters (or tokens) represent Action Points. So, if the player puts two tokens into the Option field, he can use them later for special things. The idea currently is that he can, at any time, spend one counter out of the Option field, to add a +1 to any one check, or to add +1 any one Defense he has. This represents/replaces "fighting defensively" and "total defense" as well as feats that grant attack bonuses in exchange for actions. But this is simpler, and doesn't involve spending feats. Any character can do it simply by leaving counters in the Option field.
So, that's Option and Move which leaves Act. Its not called "Attack" on purpose, specifically because actually attacking something is only one of many options that a character may attempt. In all cases though the PC is "acting" in some active way. Either casting a spell on himself, on a friend, on an area, or attacking an enemy, or healing a friend etc.
So that's a very long-winded way of trying to explain the method behind what some may feel is the madness of point-based subsystems.
Lastly, Keith says "Again, tracking movement using points may or may not simplify things. I’ll have to look at it carefully when I get to the details. I’m not sure that the mention of a Fatigue Point system belongs under this section or was intended to be separate, but formatting suggests it is. I’m leery of it, if only because I’m not really fond of fatigue systems."
Movement: The unfortunate part is that since my latest thinking (as alluded to above) isn't even really on the site yet, the movement system may LOOK more complicated than I hope it really is. A little on the intent though is that so many places in d20 use phrases like "movement costs through these sorts of spaces are doubled" and then you get into complications of stacking of doubles and multiples of doubles etc. The idea of using Movement Points is that it allows the player to understand that each square of movement he is "spending" movement points. In most cases, it costs 1 MP to enter a square, so all a player needs to know is if he has 5 movement, he can move 5 squares with one movement. However, if there is a square in the middle that costs 2 squares to enter, he just has to count it that way. This also allows for simpler rules such as "if a square costs more than 1 MP to enter, a creature can not charge through it" instead of using several sentences to describe situations where a creature can or can not charge through an area.
Fatigue: The Fatigue rules are very in flux at the moment but the idea is that they will likely become a core subsystem, in that, all Ability Scores will tie into Fatigue rules (or at least the same mechanics that define Fatigue etc.)
Ok, that's enough of a "response" post, now I'll post a short review/summary of what I find about Echelon d20.
In this post he says "It seems to be closer to using Pathfinder System Resource Document (PFSRD) as a base than the System Resource Document (SRD) or Revised System Resource Document (RSRD) directly."
Well in truth yes, that's where I started, as in, from the Pathfinder revision of the various System Reference Documents. I wanted to have that as my baseline to build up/off from. Mainly because I could easily start with a snapshot of d20pfsrd.com and then strip away the parts I don't want as I go. It was really more of just a time-saver. Well that's not entirely true because initially I had intended to keep the various things that make Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. That meant keeping the Combat Maneuver mechanics and the newer revisions of all of the core spells etc. However, as development has proceeded, I have continued to strip away layers such that there really isn't much Pathfinder left in it. And ultimately, that's ok, because it turns out I really want something more fundamentally different than would be possible if I saddle myself with the requirement that it has to in some way look, or sound, or play, like Pathfinder. I've moved on now :)
Site Design is simple/clean
Well yeah but that's really more just because this is a virtual scratchpad at this point. So much of what I've had up has changed so much, so often, that dedicating any (or much) energy to presentation at this point would be a waste of effort.
What's New?
Well the "What's New?" sidebars were sort of a direct response to a request from site viewers who were having a hard time keeping up with my changes. I tried to add a quick summary of what was on the page, and a high-level overview of the significance of the rules associated.
In this post, Keith says, "Classes do have some design benefits, but there can be other approaches to the same design goals that avoid some of the problems experienced in D&D." And yes, I agree. Classes can make the development end of the game easier because it makes balancing powers and abilities easier by bundling good things with bad things so that each class is a self-contained package of "balance" by making the player take some things he doesn't care about in order to get the things he does. When I make a character I don't want to have to take feature B and C because I want feature A. I want feature A, and D. I won't go into too much detail but the point is, I personally want a more fine-grained character creation process.
Then, he says, "John’s use of ‘Action Point’ here is consistent with use from other games (a measure of how much an actor can or does do in his turn). Several d20 games use ‘Action Point’ to mean ‘extra mojo you can pull out when needed’. On the face of it ‘fine grained’ doesn’t suggest simplification to me. However, if it clarifies things it may make things simpler."
Yes, precisely. In Threshold, a player spends Action Points to perform Actions. They are the basic currency of combat. Virtually anything a player wants his character to do is done by spending some number of Action Points (generally ranging from 1 to 5.) So then the question becomes, does this make things easier? Obviously that remains to be seen but the biggest way I think it simplifies things is it removes the arbitrary terminology of Swift, Immediate, Standard, Complete, Full, in terms of Actions, and replaces each with a simple number. The idea is that by introducing a text layer in the equation it requires players to do a translation step in their heads. Meaning, the player must translate "Standard" action and "Complete" and "Full Round" and "Swift" into some sort of mental math to understand how much his character can perform.
The idea is that by removing that translation step and cutting straight to a numeric value, the player can more easily and quickly understand HOW much his PC can do. This will be made even easier once I roll out a preview of the Combat Assistant sheets. The concept now is that each player will have a half-sheet of paper in front of him with a diagram roughly similar to the old Van Halen logo, meaning, a flying V. The left side of the V is titled "Act", the middle of the V is titled "Option", and the right side of the V is titled "Move."
Beneath each Title are 5 rows. Each row includes 2-3 short summaries of what the player gets for his PC if he allocates his Action Points into that field. For instance, under "Move" there are 5 rows.
Row 1 - "1: Gain 1 MP"
Row 2 - "2: Gain (Speed) MP"
Row 3 - "3: Gain (Speed + Dex) MP"
Row 4 - "4: Gain (Speed x 2) MP"
Row 5 - "5: Gain (Speed + Dex) x3 MP"
Then, when the player is allocating his Action Points, if he is using tokens or counters, he can put two tokens on Row 2 under Move and know he can move his speed in movement one time. If, however, he put 4 counters on row 4, he could move his speed x2 in movement. The idea is that by using a physical representation of actions, as in tokens or counters, he can push them around the combat pad to easily see what he can do.
The middle of the V, the Option field, is a sort of "neutral" or "unassigned" field where counters sit until used. Remember, counters (or tokens) represent Action Points. So, if the player puts two tokens into the Option field, he can use them later for special things. The idea currently is that he can, at any time, spend one counter out of the Option field, to add a +1 to any one check, or to add +1 any one Defense he has. This represents/replaces "fighting defensively" and "total defense" as well as feats that grant attack bonuses in exchange for actions. But this is simpler, and doesn't involve spending feats. Any character can do it simply by leaving counters in the Option field.
So, that's Option and Move which leaves Act. Its not called "Attack" on purpose, specifically because actually attacking something is only one of many options that a character may attempt. In all cases though the PC is "acting" in some active way. Either casting a spell on himself, on a friend, on an area, or attacking an enemy, or healing a friend etc.
So that's a very long-winded way of trying to explain the method behind what some may feel is the madness of point-based subsystems.
Lastly, Keith says "Again, tracking movement using points may or may not simplify things. I’ll have to look at it carefully when I get to the details. I’m not sure that the mention of a Fatigue Point system belongs under this section or was intended to be separate, but formatting suggests it is. I’m leery of it, if only because I’m not really fond of fatigue systems."
Movement: The unfortunate part is that since my latest thinking (as alluded to above) isn't even really on the site yet, the movement system may LOOK more complicated than I hope it really is. A little on the intent though is that so many places in d20 use phrases like "movement costs through these sorts of spaces are doubled" and then you get into complications of stacking of doubles and multiples of doubles etc. The idea of using Movement Points is that it allows the player to understand that each square of movement he is "spending" movement points. In most cases, it costs 1 MP to enter a square, so all a player needs to know is if he has 5 movement, he can move 5 squares with one movement. However, if there is a square in the middle that costs 2 squares to enter, he just has to count it that way. This also allows for simpler rules such as "if a square costs more than 1 MP to enter, a creature can not charge through it" instead of using several sentences to describe situations where a creature can or can not charge through an area.
Fatigue: The Fatigue rules are very in flux at the moment but the idea is that they will likely become a core subsystem, in that, all Ability Scores will tie into Fatigue rules (or at least the same mechanics that define Fatigue etc.)
Ok, that's enough of a "response" post, now I'll post a short review/summary of what I find about Echelon d20.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Where Have We Been?
We're Still Here!
Just have been swamped with major updates on d20pfsrd.com. We'll be back here SOON though (as soon as the Psionics Unleashed and Forgotten Foes books are a wrap that is!)
Ok, that's all for now but we're still ruminating on this!
--jr
Just have been swamped with major updates on d20pfsrd.com. We'll be back here SOON though (as soon as the Psionics Unleashed and Forgotten Foes books are a wrap that is!)
Ok, that's all for now but we're still ruminating on this!
--jr
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Where We Stand on Point Buy
A recent poster (thanks Pinky!) made a few good points I think need discussing so its clear where this is going.
What kind of point buy will this be?
Well the simple answer is "as simple a kind as I can make it" which, if explained in a little more detail means...
I like point buy but I also dislike too much work or detail in creation time.. I don't want to get bogged down with a Champions or GURPS-style character that has 200 points to spend. I want to achieve a couple of things with this system, and perhaps it is very ambitious. I'm just too stupid to know I shouldn't even attempt it. Ok, the idea is that I think that high level "classic" d20 games are a beast. Right now a friend is putting together a one-shot, single weekend death-fest for 15th level PC's in Pathfinder. The amount of work creating the characters for the players and creating NPC's and monsters for the GM is insane. Add to that the fact that at least one of the PC's will have dozens and dozens of special abilities and tricks, yet the player doesn't have an exceptional grasp on the mechanics of 90% of them. Then, consider that the vast majority of the NPC's and monsters the GM is whipping up will have MANY, MANY abilities, only a few of which will ever be played. Of course 4E resolved a lot of this by simplifying the NPC and monster creation process... BUT, I don't want to go quite as far as the 4E model. I want PC's and monsters to be manageable, yet still interesting and not purely combat statistics. So, what does this have to do with Point Buy character creation you ask? Well I am trying to balance out the notion of VERY MANY abilities vs. a few key abilities that define a character or monster, and how best to achieve that. I am heavily in favor of "theme-based" characters where a player comes up with a theme and then continues building on that theme over time. However, if the classic character advancement model is used its simply layer upon layer of more, more, more. Ideally, the number of abilities a character possesses doesn't grow to the nth degree but instead the character possesses a few key abilities it develops tricks for over time. So... that's probably a long-winded way of not saying very much after all lol
So, back to the questions from Pinky's post... "Will it be a GURPS type game which allows most character design freedom but at the cost of more DM intervention? Or will it be a slightly more guided affair with rules which enforce at least a semblance of balance."
Well, the goal is the player is free to choose what he likes, because hopefully the system enforces balance and doesn't depend on a GM to do that. Really, I feel that's ultimately the job of the system, not the GM. The GM shouldn't have to worry about balancing the system he is running. If he is, there's something wrong with the system. The GM should not HAVE to "fix" things. Can he change things he doesn't like? Certainly! However, he shouldn't HAVE to. So, my response there is that the goal is that the system enforces balance and leaves the player free to build to match his concept.
Pinky then made a few suggestions...
- Level based caps on augmentation of talents.
Yep. already planning on that. Basically, any bonus granted by a Talent can not exceed the level of the PC. The next question becomes, "well how will you manage stacking of bonuses?" Well, I haven't quite gotten that far yet, but the immediate notion that comes to mind is something completely arbitrary like "Total bonuses can not exceed level +2" or something... but I'll get more into that as I get more into the PC building phase. Lately I've been focusing much more so on fixing the foundation of the system, ie, action points, movement points, etc.
- Use a separate point pool for skills talents, or allow X number of points per level to count double for skills or something similar.
This is something I've been considering anyway for another reason. Right now everything is called Talents. So I've been trying to visualize what a character sheet will look like when all is said and done and right now I can't get past the vision of one big block that just says "Talents" and it has a million things under it. I really think that's not going to be ideal and that there needs to be some separation. Right now there are Minor Talents, Standard Talents, Major Talents, and Epic Talents. I'm considering giving the Minor Talents an "aka" of "Traits" which would indicate that they are just that, traits, which I define as "an inherent part of someone that doesn't improve over time." So right now I'm debating how best to segregate these items. Also, I want clear rules that delineate what qualifies as a Minor Talent, Standard Talent, etc. so that if a GM goes back later and wants to add new stuff he can get some idea what it should be. Something like "if this talent grants a bonus that increases automatically as a pc levels, then it should be at least a standard talent" or, "if this talent grants a flat bonus not greater than 1/4 character level, then it can be a minor talent" etc. I don't want vague guidelines that leave GM's scratching their heads misjudging things into one category when they should be in another.
- Give people who take an archetype a greater number of points, but restrict what a number of those points can be spent on. Or alternatively use something like the GURPS lens system and restrict lenses by archetype.
Yeah, I was already considering giving some level of incentive for choosing Archetypes. For now though there wouldn't really be much "point spending" if someone chooses an Archetype because the theory is that all the points are already spent because all choices have already been made. The incentive for choosing an Archetype might be that the PC gets a few more points OVERALL than if the character was custom built, which is a reward for choosing something the game designer(s) already feel is balanced. Also, certain players DO NOT want to make too many choices. They want to sit down and play and the leveling process is not their cup of tea.
Ok, back to the grindstone. Oh, by the way, anyone want to help? :)
What kind of point buy will this be?
Well the simple answer is "as simple a kind as I can make it" which, if explained in a little more detail means...
I like point buy but I also dislike too much work or detail in creation time.. I don't want to get bogged down with a Champions or GURPS-style character that has 200 points to spend. I want to achieve a couple of things with this system, and perhaps it is very ambitious. I'm just too stupid to know I shouldn't even attempt it. Ok, the idea is that I think that high level "classic" d20 games are a beast. Right now a friend is putting together a one-shot, single weekend death-fest for 15th level PC's in Pathfinder. The amount of work creating the characters for the players and creating NPC's and monsters for the GM is insane. Add to that the fact that at least one of the PC's will have dozens and dozens of special abilities and tricks, yet the player doesn't have an exceptional grasp on the mechanics of 90% of them. Then, consider that the vast majority of the NPC's and monsters the GM is whipping up will have MANY, MANY abilities, only a few of which will ever be played. Of course 4E resolved a lot of this by simplifying the NPC and monster creation process... BUT, I don't want to go quite as far as the 4E model. I want PC's and monsters to be manageable, yet still interesting and not purely combat statistics. So, what does this have to do with Point Buy character creation you ask? Well I am trying to balance out the notion of VERY MANY abilities vs. a few key abilities that define a character or monster, and how best to achieve that. I am heavily in favor of "theme-based" characters where a player comes up with a theme and then continues building on that theme over time. However, if the classic character advancement model is used its simply layer upon layer of more, more, more. Ideally, the number of abilities a character possesses doesn't grow to the nth degree but instead the character possesses a few key abilities it develops tricks for over time. So... that's probably a long-winded way of not saying very much after all lol
So, back to the questions from Pinky's post... "Will it be a GURPS type game which allows most character design freedom but at the cost of more DM intervention? Or will it be a slightly more guided affair with rules which enforce at least a semblance of balance."
Well, the goal is the player is free to choose what he likes, because hopefully the system enforces balance and doesn't depend on a GM to do that. Really, I feel that's ultimately the job of the system, not the GM. The GM shouldn't have to worry about balancing the system he is running. If he is, there's something wrong with the system. The GM should not HAVE to "fix" things. Can he change things he doesn't like? Certainly! However, he shouldn't HAVE to. So, my response there is that the goal is that the system enforces balance and leaves the player free to build to match his concept.
Pinky then made a few suggestions...
- Level based caps on augmentation of talents.
Yep. already planning on that. Basically, any bonus granted by a Talent can not exceed the level of the PC. The next question becomes, "well how will you manage stacking of bonuses?" Well, I haven't quite gotten that far yet, but the immediate notion that comes to mind is something completely arbitrary like "Total bonuses can not exceed level +2" or something... but I'll get more into that as I get more into the PC building phase. Lately I've been focusing much more so on fixing the foundation of the system, ie, action points, movement points, etc.
- Use a separate point pool for skills talents, or allow X number of points per level to count double for skills or something similar.
This is something I've been considering anyway for another reason. Right now everything is called Talents. So I've been trying to visualize what a character sheet will look like when all is said and done and right now I can't get past the vision of one big block that just says "Talents" and it has a million things under it. I really think that's not going to be ideal and that there needs to be some separation. Right now there are Minor Talents, Standard Talents, Major Talents, and Epic Talents. I'm considering giving the Minor Talents an "aka" of "Traits" which would indicate that they are just that, traits, which I define as "an inherent part of someone that doesn't improve over time." So right now I'm debating how best to segregate these items. Also, I want clear rules that delineate what qualifies as a Minor Talent, Standard Talent, etc. so that if a GM goes back later and wants to add new stuff he can get some idea what it should be. Something like "if this talent grants a bonus that increases automatically as a pc levels, then it should be at least a standard talent" or, "if this talent grants a flat bonus not greater than 1/4 character level, then it can be a minor talent" etc. I don't want vague guidelines that leave GM's scratching their heads misjudging things into one category when they should be in another.
- Give people who take an archetype a greater number of points, but restrict what a number of those points can be spent on. Or alternatively use something like the GURPS lens system and restrict lenses by archetype.
Yeah, I was already considering giving some level of incentive for choosing Archetypes. For now though there wouldn't really be much "point spending" if someone chooses an Archetype because the theory is that all the points are already spent because all choices have already been made. The incentive for choosing an Archetype might be that the PC gets a few more points OVERALL than if the character was custom built, which is a reward for choosing something the game designer(s) already feel is balanced. Also, certain players DO NOT want to make too many choices. They want to sit down and play and the leveling process is not their cup of tea.
Ok, back to the grindstone. Oh, by the way, anyone want to help? :)
Monday, March 21, 2011
Movement in d20 Open RPG
Let's take a look at what we're doing with movement next.
In a previous post we discussed Actions and Action Points (AP). Now we'll discuss Movement and Movement Points (MP.)
In a previous post we discussed Actions and Action Points (AP). Now we'll discuss Movement and Movement Points (MP.)
Movement and Movement Point Costs
Movement Points, abbreviated MP, are different from AP (Action Points) in that MP are only used for movement, whereas AP are used for any sort of action. A creature spends AP to gain MP. Generally, 2 AP allows a creature to move a number of squares up to its base speed one time. Or, said another way, by spending 2 AP, a creature can move a number of squares up to its base speed 1 time.
A creature's gains a number of MP to spend equal to 5 plus its Dexterity modifier plus its Size Rating (will be discussed in future post).
This amount of MP is alternately referred to as a creature's "Base Speed" or "Base MP". The exact number can vary depending on circumstances or Talents a creature possesses.
As all creatures can spend 5 Action Points in a round, a creature can, if desired, spend 2 AP two times, in order to be able to move its base speed two times in a round. This would leave them with 1 AP to spend to perform some other minor action. Some situations may increase or decrease the amount of AP or MP a creature can expend in a round.
A human-sized creature (Size Rating 0) gains 5 MP if it has no Dexterity modifier (its base speed is 5). A creature the size of an ogre (Size Rating 1) gains 6 plus its Dexterity modifier MP by spending 2 AP.
Usually it costs 1 MP to enter a square. However, things like rough terrain, obstacles, or darkness can increase this cost. Some Talents and other effects can increase or decrease the amount of MP a creature gains or can spend in a round.
Scale and Distance
There are three different scales that movement occurs in: Tactical, Local, and Overland. The distance a creature moves when spending MP depends on the scale of movement.
Tactical Scale
The Tactical scale is the most common scale because it is the scale used during combats. In the Tactical Scale, 1 MP = one square on a grid. For example, a creature that spends 5 MP can move up to 5 squares, assuming no hindering terrain or other limiting factors.
Diagonal Movement
Moving diagonally costs +1 MP. A creature can not move diagonally past a corner. A creature can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent. A creature can also move diagonally past other impassable obstacles, such as pits.
"Friendly" Squares
Any square that is occupied but not by an opponent is considered "friendly." A square that is occupied by a helpless opponent is also considered "friendly." A friendly square costs +1 MP to enter.
"Unfriendly" Squares
Any square that is occupied by an opponent that is not helpless is considered "unfriendly." A creature can't enter an unfriendly square unless the occupant is much larger or smaller than itself (see Different Sized Creatures and Movement) or if the opponent let's them enter.
Ending Movement
A creature can never end its movement in a square occupied by another creature (friendly or otherwise) unless the occupying creature is helpless. If something causes a creature to end its movement in a space it can not occupy it is forced to the nearest viable space. Any unspent MP are lost.
Exceptions
Some creatures break the above rules due to their nature or shape. A creature that completely fills the space it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Acrobatics skill or similar special abilities (unless they could be flown or jumped over.)
Local Scale
The Local scale is used when outside of combat or initiative such as when exploring an area or moving about. In the Local Scale, 1 MP = 50 ft., meaning, a creature that spends 5 MP can move up to 250 ft. in a round by spending 2 AP. 1 round = 1 minute on the Local scale. It is usually not helpful or necessary to count or track squares of movement on the Local scale.
Overland Scale
The Overland scale is used when moving long distances such as when traveling on a road or across country and not exploring. In the Overland Scale 1 MP = 1/2 mile, meaning, a creature with 5 MP can move 2.5 miles in a round. 1 round = 1 hour on the Overland scale.
Creatures traveling cross-country use overland movement. Overland movement is measured in miles per hour or miles per day. A day represents 8 hours of actual travel time. For rowed watercraft, a day represents 10 hours of rowing. For a sailing ship, it represents 24 hours.
Extended Travel
A creature can walk 8 plus its Constitution modifier in hours per day without a problem. Walking for longer than that can wear him out. The rest of the time is assumed to be spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating.
For each hour of travel greater than 8 plus its Constitution modifier, the creature must make a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour). If the check fails, the character gains 1d6 fatigue points.
Movement Actions
There are three main modes (or speeds) of movement, Minor Move, Full Move, and Complete Move.
Minor Move
A creature moving its base speed one time in a round is moving at a relaxed pace. This is also called using a "Minor Move." It costs 2 AP to move a creatures Base Speed one time.
Full Move
A creature moving its base speed two times in a round is moving at a brisk pace. This is also called using a "Full Move." It costs 4 AP to move a creatures Base Speed two times.
Complete Move
A creature moving its base speed four times in a round is moving at a very fast pace. This is also called using a "Complete Move." It costs 5 AP to move a creature's base speed four times. Each base speed increment must be in a straight line and may not pass through any square that costs more than 1 MP to enter. This is very hurried pace that can only be maintained for a limited time. If it enters a square that costs more than 1 MP to enter, any remaining MP it has are lost and its movement ends.
A creature may gain a +1 bonus to its base speed making a Constitution check against DC 15. For every 5 it exceeds this DC it increases its base speed by an additional +1. For example, a human size (Size Rating 0) creature, without any Dexterity bonus, has a base speed of 5. If the creature succeeded a Constitution check against DC 15, its base speed is temporarily treated as if it was 6, meaning, when it spends 2 AP, it may move 6 squares instead of 5. If, when making this check, it exceeded the DC by 10, then it increases its base speed by +3 (+1 at DC 15, +1 more at DC 20, and another +1 at DC 25.)
A creature performing a Complete Move action loses any Dexterity bonus to its Defense until its next Begin Phase. It must make Constitution checks during the Begin Phase of each of its successive turns to continue to running.
Movement Modifiers
The following situations and circumstances affect movement either by reducing the amount of MP a creature may use in a round or by increasing the MP required to perform some action.
Encumbrance
Encumbrance is a condition that causes fatigue.
Hampered Terrain
Things like rough ground, minor obstacles and poor visibility can cause a square to cost more than 1 MP to enter. In these cases the square is described as "hampered."
A square can cost any amount of MP to enter, depending on the nature of the obstacles or hampering effects.
A creature can not enter a square if it does not have sufficient MP to enter it.
Effects of Hampered Terrain on Different Sized Creatures
Larger creatures are less affected by some types of hampered terrain, subject to GM discretion. Generally though, a creature subtracts its Size Rating from additional MP costs. A creature can never reduce the cost below 1 MP however.
Obstacles
A square with an obstacle that does not completely block it is considered hampered. Obstacles generally have a Size Rating, just as creatures do, and this Size Rating is added to the MP cost to enter the square. For example, a massive boulder (Size Rating 3) occupies a space. A creature must spend 1 MP normally, +3 to enter that square.Obstacles can never reduce the cost to enter a square. The nature of the obstacle will determine the additional MP required to enter that square. In general though, most minor obstacles should increase the cost by +1 MP.
Restricted/Tight Areas
Passages also have Size Ratings. A passage designed for humans is Size Rating 0. A passage designed for giants might be as large as Size Rating 3 or even greater.
If the Size Rating of a passage is less than a creature that is passing through it, the creature passing through must pay the difference in additional MP. For example, a Size Rating 1 creature passing through a Size Rating 0 passage pays +1 MP to enter it. Further, the creature suffers penalties in combat equal to the difference (see Size and Restriction in Combat.)
A creature that enters a square with a Size Rating 2 less than own, gains the entangled condition.
A creature can not enter a square with a Size Rating that is more than two less than its own.
Ok, that's enough for this time... More to come later!
Rules Mentioned:
If the Size Rating of a passage is less than a creature that is passing through it, the creature passing through must pay the difference in additional MP. For example, a Size Rating 1 creature passing through a Size Rating 0 passage pays +1 MP to enter it. Further, the creature suffers penalties in combat equal to the difference (see Size and Restriction in Combat.)
A creature that enters a square with a Size Rating 2 less than own, gains the entangled condition.
A creature can not enter a square with a Size Rating that is more than two less than its own.
Ok, that's enough for this time... More to come later!
Rules Mentioned:
- Size & Space
- Action Points
- Acrobatics Talent
- Constitution Checks
- Fatigue
Reputation
Today's sneak preview covers the subject of Reputation, a mechanic that is meant to replace Knowledge checks, as well as to feed into things like "Lore" and social interactions. In addition, one goal is completely replacing the existing "Knowledge" checks system of Pathfinder. Here's what I mean...
Right now, the existing Knowledge system works such that a pc has to have multiple different Knowledge skills, and then, assuming he has one appropriate to a creature he encounters, he makes a check. A Knowledge check is basically an Intelligence check modified by his ranks in the appropriate Knowledge sub-specialty. Then, if he knows it, the GM is sort of up in the air as to what he tells the player. In some 3.x monster supplements, a "Lore" section is included, but not with core Paizo monsters. Even if it were though, and even in the cases where it does exist, the mechanic leaves a lot to be desired. The basic system says that the DC of a Knowledge check equals the CR of the creature, and then for each increment of 5 that the check exceeds the base DC, some amount of additional information is learned. Since d20 Open RPG uses the Threshold mechanic, this is simple to reproduce, but we can make it a bit more fine-grained, in that we can play with the actual increment amount, as well as completely change what information is provided with successful checks. The intent is to make it both easier for a GM, and more helpful for a player. It is easier for a GM because it specifies very clearly what sorts of information can be gained, at what DC's, and more helpful for a player because it might reveal specific information about an encountered creature that is critical to defeating or overcoming it.
With all of that said, here is the state of the Reputation rules as they stand at this time.
What is Reputation?
Reputation determines how much is known about something or someone, and the general type of information that is known. Usually the more powerful a creature is, the more well known it is, but that is certainly not always the case. Some creatures are incredibly powerful, yet so little known, that even though they possess world-altering abilities, virtually no one knows anything about them.
Reputation is used in two main ways:
1) To see if a player character knows something about someone or something it encounters (such as a monster, object or NPC) This helps a player character know the strengths, weaknesses, and notable facts about things (specifically, allowing the player character to guess the power level of the subject as well as actual, specific abilities the subject possesses.)
2) To see if a non-player character knows something about a player character it encounters (such as the characters recent exploits or famous habits) This impacts social interaction with the non-player character (see Social Interaction and Reputation, below.)
In the first case, any person, place, or thing can have a reputation from a little-known assassin who guards his reputation carefully, to a place like a popular tavern with a reputation for bawdy lasses and free-flowing ale, or even a lost artifact of legend. When a player character encounters (or even hears of) something, there is a chance they might know something about it. A player character can attempt to make use of this information to find weaknesses in enemies, to see if they know hidden information about a place, or even to see if they know of the history or secret abilities of an object.
In the second case, when a non-player character encounters (or hears of) a player character, the non-player characters starting attitude when interacting with the player character may be other than indifferent depending on what it thinks it knows about the player character.
Reputation Checks
When the GM decides that reputation can be a factor in an encounter, or if a player asks about somethings reputation, he makes a Reputation check. This may be done to see if the player characters know something about the subject matter (the encountered character, creature, place, or thing, etc), or to see if the non-player character/creature knows something about the player characters (and so may be predisposed to a certain attitude towards them.) If a creature has no possible way of recognizing or knowing something about the creature in question, then no check is necessary.
Creature's with a low Reputation score (10 or less) are considered well known and information about them is relatively common knowledge. A successful Reputation check simply indicates something is known about the character or creature, not whether or not that information is positive or negative.
Creature's with a medium Reputation score (11 to 15 or so) are less well known and creatures or characters with a high Reputation score (20 or greater) are much less known and accurate information about them is hard to come by.
Making a Reputation Check
A GM may make a Reputation check for a player to see if his character recognizes something or someone, or for a non-player character to see if they recognize a player character. In either case success indicates some amount of knowledge about the subject is known. For non-player characters, this may cause them to have an attitude other than indifferent when interacting with player characters.
Check 1d20 + Int modifier
DC The DC to recognize the name of a subject is 15 minus its challenge level. A creature can intentionally prevent its reputation growing by guarding its reputation (see Guarding Reputation below.)
Success Special (depends on result of DC.)
Name The name of the subject is recognized.
Threshold Unless otherwise stated, the default Reputation Threshold is 2, meaning, a Reputation check must exceed the DC by at least 2 to gain or know any information more than the name of the subject and vague, most likely incorrect rumors.
For each Threshold rolled, additional information may be gleaned, such as its secondary abilities or information it has attempted to guard. Alternatively, misinformation modifiers are overcome and true information is learned. If a creature making a Reputation check rolls at least one Threshold it must decide what it would like to know more about, the subjects power level, the most recent or notable exploits of the subject, or secondary traits of the subject. Note that choosing one does not specifically exclude basic knowledge of the others, it simply determines which area the creature making the roll knows the most about.
Power Level If one Threshold is rolled, the subjects challenge level is guessed within plus or minus 2. The GM should roll 1d4. A result of 1-2 underestimates the actual challenge level by the result of the roll, and a result of 3-4 overestimates the actual challenge level by the result of the roll. For each Threshold rolled, reduce the difference between the rolled (guessed) challenge level and the actual challenge level by 1. Effectively this means that if one Threshold is scored, and the guess was off by 2, then it is now only off by 1. It may still be over or under, depending on what the d4 result was. If two Thresholds were rolled, then the exact challenge level is guessed, even if it was off by 2. The character or creature obviously has no knowledge of terms such as "challenge level" but this is simply a method for a player to be able to estimate the power level of the subject.
History or Exploits If one Threshold is rolled, the most recent or most notable exploits or activities are known. The exact specifics are not known, just an overall idea of the activities, such as "has spent the last 2 months exploring the dungeon of doom in the northern province" or for a place, "has been the abode of a noted necromancer known to have repeatedly attacked the nearby duke" etc. For each additional Threshold, more in-depth information is known, or, information from further back in time is known (normally only the most recent events are known.)
Secondary Traits Unless the subject has taken steps to guard its reputation, one Threshold reveals a secondary trait. Additional Thresholds either reveal additional secondary traits, or reveal additional information regarding one trait. Secondary traits include the creatures special abilities, strengths, or weaknesses. Anything with a Reputation score will always include a Reputation modifier for each of its secondary traits.
Fail Nothing immediately springs to mind about the subject. A check can be attempted again in 1 minute. If one negative Threshold (the check fails by 2 or more) is rolled, then the check fails and may not be attempted again. The creature simply does not know anything about the subject and continuing to think about it does not help. If more than one negative Threshold is rolled, then misinformation is recalled instead of actual information (even if the subject had not intentionally attempted to spread misinformation.)
Modifiers
The GM may apply various circumstance modifiers depending on the characters and creatures in question. An intelligent creature or subject with a Reputation score can take specific proactive actions to manage its Reputation score. It can attempt to increase its fame, it can attempt to decrease its fame, or it can attempt to spread false information about itself.
Open / Guarded Reputation
A subject can take steps to make its reputation more or less well known, so that it is easier or harder for others to know information about them. At the time of gaining a level (or once per point of challenge level for non-player subjects with a reputation score such as objects or places) a creature can attempt a Charisma check vs. its current Reputation score. If it succeeds, it may choose to do one of the following:
- Increase or decrease its base Reputation score by an amount equal to its Charisma modifier. This either basically makes the creature generally more or less famous.
- Increase or decrease the Threshold number required to know about its power level, about one secondary trait it possesses, or about one recent exploit by 1. Meaning, the default Threshold of 2 increases to 3 and so on.
- Note that in any of the cases above, the creature simply makes true information easier or harder to determine, but it does not seek to change information about itself, that is covered by Misinformation below.
Misinformation
A creature can deliberately attempt to spread false or misleading information, causing others to believe things that are not entirely true. At the time of gaining a level a creature can attempt a Charisma check vs. its current Reputation score. If it succeeds, it may choose to do one of the following:
- Increase or decrease its perceived power level. If successful, the subjects challenge level appears to be 1 greater or less than it is, depending on what is preferred.
- Spread false information about its secondary traits. The creature may attempt to spread rumors that it possesses abilities it doesn't. If successful, if another creature makes a Reputation check and believes it knows something about its secondary traits, this false trait is included as if it were true.
- Spread false rumors of its exploits or accomplishments. The subject seeks to create tall tales about its accomplishments, causing others to believe it has done things it hasn't. If successful, when another creature makes a Reputation check pertaining to the subject, this false exploit is included as if it were true.
Social Interaction and Reputation
When a player character interacts with non-player characters, the non-player characters initial attitude towards the player character might be affected if it knows anything about the player character. Whenever appropriate, the GM should have a non-player character make a Reputation check to see if it knows (or thinks it knows) anything about a player character it is interacting with. Unless the non-player character rolls a high enough result to have knowledge of the player characters recent exploits, then its starting attitude is unchanged, meaning, whatever its default attitude is, is what it remains. However, if the result of the non-player characters check is high enough to have some amount of knowledge of the player characters recent activities, and this knowledge might sway its attitude, then the GM should increase or decrease the non-player characters attitude by one step, the direction depending on its perspective of these exploits.
Full Rules: http://www.d20openrpg.com/characters/reputation
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Actions and Action Points
D20 Open RPG uses a "point-based" Actions model.
This post discusses the Action Points mechanics found at http://www.d20openrpg.com/gamemastering/combat-encounters/actions-in-combat
What does that mean? Well, instead of saying that a player has 1 "Standard" Action, 1 "Move" Action, and 1 "Swift" Action, each of those action types has a point value of 3, 2, and 1. In addition, there are 4 and 5 point actions. All characters and creatures may spend 5 Action Points (AP) in a round. That means they may perform two 2 AP actions and one 1 AP action, or one 3 AP action and one 2 AP action, or one 4 AP action and one 1 AP action.
Why?
The idea is that words like "Standard," "Move," and "Swift" are essentially meaningless and unimportant mechanically, not to mention unnecessarily complicating. The important part is how can a player use these actions in a round? Often there is an "exchange rate" where a player may trade one type of action for a lesser action. This is essentially the same thing as simply using a point-based model, yet isn't. It's missing the simplicity of the point-based model in exchange for... well what I don't know.
So, in d20 Open RPG, the Action Point mechanic opens a lot of options. If a creature is "hasted" it simply gets additional AP to spend in a round. If it's "slowed" it loses AP. Further, its more granular and flexible and maybe even easier for newer player's to understand. Instead of having to understand that a Standard Action is greater than a Move Action, and what a Full-Round Action is, they simply look at a menu of points and things they can do with them. If they have 5 points and the Actions Menu says "Attack: 2 AP" and "Move 2 AP" then the player can easily and quickly see that it can perform those two actions and even have 1 AP left.
What else can be done? A player can spend unused AP on additional defense. Instead of worrying about a full-defense or fighting-defensively concept, the player simply says "Oh wow, I have 2 AP left and nothing I really care to do, I think I'll spend them on additional Defense."
Oh yeah, Armor Class is called Defense in the model of d20 Modern.
What else? Spend 1 AP to not provoke a Reaction Action.
Reaction Actions are essentially Attacks of Opportunity with a new name and without being explicitly restricted to attacks. So, a player can do something that would normally provoke a reaction (like perhaps drink a potion) in a threatened area, and in addition to spending the AP required to perform the provoking action, he can spend one additional AP to negate the Reaction Attack. This is an intentional design meant to reduce the frequency of attacks of opportunity-type of actions so that player's have greater freedom to move about a battle or perform other desired actions.
Commanding or Directing Others
"Economy of Actions" is an oft-repeated phrase, and really for good reason. Any participant in an encounter that gets more actions than other participants is typically far more effective than the others. Characters or creatures that control or direct many subordinate companions, cohorts, summoned creatures, minions or whatever you'd like to call them, is at a distinct advantage over others, not to mention adding a good amount of complication and delay into the encounter. One effort of addressing this is inspired by other more recent descendents of the d20 system in that controlling subordinates requires actions by the controlling force. In the case of a PC controlling a summoned creature or a companion of some sort, the PC must expend his own action points to do so. Generally he must spend AP for each creature he manages since it takes effort to monitor and direct them effectively.
Inspirations
A creature can spend AP to "aim" at a target, reducing any penalties the attack would normally suffer due to the target being behind cover, being obscured due to fog/smoke, or due to the range to the target. This is another mechanic inspired by more recent descendents of the d20 system.
Ok, enough talk, head over to http://www.d20openrpg.com/gamemastering/combat-encounters/actions-in-combat and read more.
--john
This post discusses the Action Points mechanics found at http://www.d20openrpg.com/gamemastering/combat-encounters/actions-in-combat
What does that mean? Well, instead of saying that a player has 1 "Standard" Action, 1 "Move" Action, and 1 "Swift" Action, each of those action types has a point value of 3, 2, and 1. In addition, there are 4 and 5 point actions. All characters and creatures may spend 5 Action Points (AP) in a round. That means they may perform two 2 AP actions and one 1 AP action, or one 3 AP action and one 2 AP action, or one 4 AP action and one 1 AP action.
Why?
The idea is that words like "Standard," "Move," and "Swift" are essentially meaningless and unimportant mechanically, not to mention unnecessarily complicating. The important part is how can a player use these actions in a round? Often there is an "exchange rate" where a player may trade one type of action for a lesser action. This is essentially the same thing as simply using a point-based model, yet isn't. It's missing the simplicity of the point-based model in exchange for... well what I don't know.
So, in d20 Open RPG, the Action Point mechanic opens a lot of options. If a creature is "hasted" it simply gets additional AP to spend in a round. If it's "slowed" it loses AP. Further, its more granular and flexible and maybe even easier for newer player's to understand. Instead of having to understand that a Standard Action is greater than a Move Action, and what a Full-Round Action is, they simply look at a menu of points and things they can do with them. If they have 5 points and the Actions Menu says "Attack: 2 AP" and "Move 2 AP" then the player can easily and quickly see that it can perform those two actions and even have 1 AP left.
What else can be done? A player can spend unused AP on additional defense. Instead of worrying about a full-defense or fighting-defensively concept, the player simply says "Oh wow, I have 2 AP left and nothing I really care to do, I think I'll spend them on additional Defense."
Oh yeah, Armor Class is called Defense in the model of d20 Modern.
What else? Spend 1 AP to not provoke a Reaction Action.
Reaction Actions are essentially Attacks of Opportunity with a new name and without being explicitly restricted to attacks. So, a player can do something that would normally provoke a reaction (like perhaps drink a potion) in a threatened area, and in addition to spending the AP required to perform the provoking action, he can spend one additional AP to negate the Reaction Attack. This is an intentional design meant to reduce the frequency of attacks of opportunity-type of actions so that player's have greater freedom to move about a battle or perform other desired actions.
Commanding or Directing Others
"Economy of Actions" is an oft-repeated phrase, and really for good reason. Any participant in an encounter that gets more actions than other participants is typically far more effective than the others. Characters or creatures that control or direct many subordinate companions, cohorts, summoned creatures, minions or whatever you'd like to call them, is at a distinct advantage over others, not to mention adding a good amount of complication and delay into the encounter. One effort of addressing this is inspired by other more recent descendents of the d20 system in that controlling subordinates requires actions by the controlling force. In the case of a PC controlling a summoned creature or a companion of some sort, the PC must expend his own action points to do so. Generally he must spend AP for each creature he manages since it takes effort to monitor and direct them effectively.
Inspirations
A creature can spend AP to "aim" at a target, reducing any penalties the attack would normally suffer due to the target being behind cover, being obscured due to fog/smoke, or due to the range to the target. This is another mechanic inspired by more recent descendents of the d20 system.
Ok, enough talk, head over to http://www.d20openrpg.com/gamemastering/combat-encounters/actions-in-combat and read more.
--john
Kick off!
Ok, the site's (d20openrpg.com) been up for a while and development continues. This blog is intended to be an easier place to discuss design and development subjects than where it was happening before, via Facebook posts.
So, what is this about? Have you checked out d20openrpg.com yet? Well we're hard at work developing what we like to call a "next generation d20" game system. Most of the elements already exist as Open Game Content via the d20 Modern System Reference Document, and the Pathfinder Reference Document. You see, this game system is intended to take the best elements of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and merge them with some of the more interesting elements of the d20 Modern ruleset, as well as merge in a few other elements inspired by the Star Wars Saga Edition rule set.
This is the first post, simply letting everyone know what the purpose of this blog is. Successive posts will be more detailed discussing various rules elements currently being developed. This system is meant to be a fully community built game system, so it can only accomplish that if you, the community get involved. You can do that by commenting on the various rules elements discussed in each post giving your feedback pro or con on the area being discussed, and if you like, even join the team so you can help shape this.
Ok, that's enough for the kick-off post. The next post will get right into the system.
In case you haven't checked it out yet, head on over to d20openrpg.com and poke around a bit. See what you think!
Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
--john
So, what is this about? Have you checked out d20openrpg.com yet? Well we're hard at work developing what we like to call a "next generation d20" game system. Most of the elements already exist as Open Game Content via the d20 Modern System Reference Document, and the Pathfinder Reference Document. You see, this game system is intended to take the best elements of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and merge them with some of the more interesting elements of the d20 Modern ruleset, as well as merge in a few other elements inspired by the Star Wars Saga Edition rule set.
This is the first post, simply letting everyone know what the purpose of this blog is. Successive posts will be more detailed discussing various rules elements currently being developed. This system is meant to be a fully community built game system, so it can only accomplish that if you, the community get involved. You can do that by commenting on the various rules elements discussed in each post giving your feedback pro or con on the area being discussed, and if you like, even join the team so you can help shape this.
Ok, that's enough for the kick-off post. The next post will get right into the system.
In case you haven't checked it out yet, head on over to d20openrpg.com and poke around a bit. See what you think!
Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
--john
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)