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!
No comments:
Post a Comment