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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)