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!