Search Posts
Not sure if pf2 ends up with the rocket tag issue in late game, but if it does, I had an idea for fixing it. My idea should work for any system that is roughly similar to a d20 system. If you do have the issue in pf2, I’ll post a link to my thread on it in the pf1 homebrew rules.
Saw a discussion recently about how at mid to high levels the game ends up being like rocket tag where players either win overwhelmingly or lose overwhelmingly. Thus I had an idea that might mitigate that issue. I can’t test it myself at the moment so if anyone tries it, let me know how it turns out. Alright, first, the groundwork. One thing I love about 3.x/pf1 is scaling from normal person rightfully terrified of a goblin all the way up to superheroes. Thus I don’t want to limit that scale at all. Second, I wanted minimal changes to the mechanics, so the idea is to stick with current bonuses and such, but to just even things out a bit so the linear bonuses don’t get so wide apart. Note, I’ll present the idea with one set of values, but at the end I will present a few ways the idea can be altered for different levels of granularity and scope. This, the idea is that instead of taking bonuses as direct modifiers to rolls, the bonuses are compared and the difference between them dictates the DC of the check, and the key here is diminishing returns as the difference becomes larger, thus having 50 points in your favor is essentially the same as 30 points in your favor. Any stats with a base value, such as AC or SR, subtracts 10 (yes that includes lesser SR). A bell curve roll is used. Let’s start with an attack roll. The attacker compares their attack bonus vs the defender’s AC (minus the base 10). For example, the attacker gets +2 to attack, and the defender is wearing a chain shirt with some dex for a +6. That is -4 points of difference, and in favor of the defender. The difference modifies the DC of the roll, but with diminishing returns. This table sums it up. Meet or beat DC.
Critical hits, if you beat the DC by 5 (one half the average roll of 3d6), then it counts as a critical hit, and if the DC is missed by that value, it counts as a critical miss. The same can apply to any opposed check, implicit or explicit. Damage can also be handled similarly, though obviously some changes do need to be made for a proper comparison. Dmg to HP
This also maintains relevance of DR and resistance, even the DR 1/- from adamantine remains relevant. The excessive damage rules from 3.5 need to be altered but actually matter so a farmer getting hit by a giant will most likely die. For damage, compare the attack’s max damage and divide by the max roll of all the target’s HD. (Tip, since each character already knows their own max HD, the value ranges can be pre-calculated, so they look at the damage and see which result range that amount of damage falls within, thus no division math during play. And a player that actually knows their sheet won’t even need to look after a while. The reverse can also be true, the attacker can pre-calculate the ranges from their side too.) The result on the table gives the damage to be rolled.
Roll the above die for how much HP the target loses. Critical hits still double the damage dealt to HP. This also makes hitting 0 HP exactly far more likely (you know, those “disabled” rules that no one ever gets to use) and negative HP remain relevant. Now, the granularity can be changed. You can change the base roll from 3d6 to 3d12 (or die sizes and combinations, even just stick with 1d20) and alter the scale so that range can be wider or narrower. How quickly you scale from the raw difference to the DC can be changed separately from the dice. The result of changing scale basically sets the limits of the range, at what point does the increase in difference cease to matter at all. Larger dice allow you to scale things in two ways, first to include a larger range of difference, second is to allow more variation in how much smaller differences affect the chance of success. For example, I’ll put up using 3d12 (cause I love d12s and never get to use them) as a contrasting example. Given the range however, I’ll only put in the top half, should be easy enough to mirror the bottom half of you use it. Difference, DC
Criticals are when beating (or missing) the DC by 10 (one half the average of 3d12). This is just a basic draft ready for test play. Let me know what you guys think and if anyone actually tries it, let me know how it turns out.
I'm making homebrew mechanics, basically my system to pathfinder is like pathfinder to dnd, but I've got two competing ideas for the core roll. The first is to replace the d20 with a d12 and roll two dice based on ability scores (average being 2d4), which gives values in line with existing mechanics. The second idea is to use 3d12 which requires adjusting all the other values of the system, usually by doubling them. I love the idea of letting stats affect the dice sizes, but 3d12 would be more d12s (my favorite dice so I totally want to use them) and has the simplicity of always rolling the same dice and being easier to type into a dice roller. Thus, I ask, which do you like more?
I'm working on my own heavy homebrew. Here's a dice concept idea. Basically, a core die is rolled, usually a d12 for elite characters like PCs but normal characters would be a d10 and weak creatures like goblins might even be only a d8. Likewise, powerful beings might use larger dice. Then the core die is rolled along with two additional dice, each based on an ability score instead of the normal flat modifier. The pair of ability scores used are not preset, and are intended to change based on the context around what the check is made for. For example, intimidation via imposing figure might roll with cha and str, while intimidation by implying you are about to see the baron and could ruin someone's reputation could be int and wis. This gives greater flexibility to each skill. It also works with other checks. Imagine a reflex save when failing a climb check, dex and str to find and grab a handhold with your fingertips, vs a reflex save vs a trap which would be dex and wis to notice the trap and it's nature fast enough to tumble away in the right direction to avoid the worst effects. Thus the core roll is a d12+two ability score dice. Now, this does require a slight alteration to ability scores, which I prefer anyways since I never liked negative modifiers from abilities. The modifier/die from an ability score improves every four points, each multiple of four plus one.
This means an average NPC character with all average scores rolls 1d10+2d4. I've got plenty of other alterations, but I'd like to focus on this one for now and get everyone's feedback on it.
A new person posted looking for advice on pbp on forums, so I thought I'd link a thread someone posted that was basically a pbp guide, but my focus list doesn't go that far back anymore and I have no idea how to find it anymore because my focus list was basically my bookmarks and favorites for the paizo forums. Further, I think that thread I want to link to deserves being pinned somewhere to be easy to find, though I'm not sure where a good spot for that would be, perhaps a new category for highly useful reference threads.
I've been working on my own system, and thus eventually will try once again to get playtesters, so I'm curious if offering to run an AP in my homebrew system and/or my homebrew setting would have any appeal? Why or why not?
Let's start with an overview, I have some homebrew rules in need of fresh eyes on them. Not all of them need to be accepted as long as some are. Good feedback is hard to come by and seeing how some fresh eyes handle my mechanics is basically what I'm getting out of this game. What I'm giving is running the first three books of Hell's Rebels (I only have the first three and am not in a position to buy more. If the players want to gift me the remaining books I'll happily run them as well) with chronicle sheets as per a home campaign in PFS. The basic set of mechanics I'm looking at is PF1 core rulebook, Advanced Class Guide, Advance Race Guide. I'm willing to use things from other supplements on a case by case basis, though I'm doing any of the unchained stuff. I'm trying to keep the mechanics from getting too crazy with all the supplements out there. Now, remember that the exact selection of these homebrew mechanics are up for discussion. I honestly don't expect to run with all of these, as I've found most players are far more comfortable with only a few changes at a time, but I've got enough to basically overhaul the entire d20 system (which is my eventual goal). Note, I'm very much of the mind that mechanics should be used to represent the narrative and make rulings easier rather than be a game unto themselves, thus the most important element to me is maintaining the casual simulationism, though I know it's been rather popular to drop that in the newer systems. A couple aspects of that which are supposed to be acknowledged but usually aren't, is that once you are level 6, you are superhuman compared to real world people. Additionally, I don't do the whole "all encounters should be roughly equal to the party's level" stuff. 3.x was explicitly not designed for that, and while I'm not sure if pf1 kept that encounter table (my core book is packed away at the moment), the system hasn't altered that in the general design, so I will be keeping hold to that. Additionally, I ground my rulings and GM calls on what makes sense in the narrative, not technicalities of mechanics. I also go a step further and will use tactics and not rely on brute force of mechanical numbers. So if you encounter a bunch of guards to fight, expect them to work as a unit rather than individually. They will not be acting like the ai in an mmo. Onto the homebrew! Skill based magic and caster vs martial shift:
Goals of this change: Aside from a preference for skill based actions, skill based casting is intended to accomplish three things, first is to allow a bit more magic into the setting in terms of how often it can be used and by whom. Second, is to make magic more exciting and risky, which doesn't work when overly limited in uses available, but with risk on the results of magic but less risk of wasting a very limited resource for a mere attempt. And third, to alter how magic is balanced against martials. The balance between casters and martials in 3.x and older was based on two factors that don't really work in modern gaming. First was risk of death. In old school play, a caster was far more likely to die, making the extra power a sort of reward for surviving on "hard mode" as it might be put. You were very likely to die but if you survived you would get grand power, whereas a martial might not get as much power as a caster at high level, they were far more likely to actually reach high level. Thus casters vs martials was a strategic choice across a campaign rather than merely across any single encounter. The second old school balancing factor was spells per day. There was no 15-minute workday as the gm is not supposed to allow it. This meant that casters couldn't afford to just blast away then rest for every encounter, and that meant you could use a caster for spike damage if you wanted or to clear out minions (as it was never supposed to have only equal level encounters) if you wanted, but that wasn't really the most efficient use of spells in general. So in part I want to change that balance, instead making magic a bit more of a gamble when actually casting but yet ease up on the per day limits. Martials are now supposed to be more reliable but specialized, while casters are now supposed to be more versatile but also more of a gamble and less reliable in combat. How skill based magic works. Magic is a skill that splits into subskills, like profession and knowledge. One subskill for each school of magic, each domain (for clerics and such), and each element or element like theme (like fire or shadow). Additionally are subskills for each subschool that isn't an alignment or element, such as the figment subschool, and these very narrow subskills get an automatic +2 bonus. Each spell can be taken as an individual skill which gets the plus +2 bonus like subschool skills, but also means the character does not need to memorize the spell from a spellbook nor reference a text to cast it. However, if a character puts ranks into a subschool or specific spell, they must use the most specific skill for such spells. What happens if a noncaster puts ranks into magic? A noncaster can then cast that magic, however they require reading from a reference (unless they put ranks into the specific spell being cast) while casting and since they have no slots, they must spend HP to fuel the spell (caster classes can use HP to fuel spells as well if they desire). The HP cost is 1 for first level spells, and +2 HP cost per spell level. Cantrips can be cast once per approximately 10 minutes without cost, but multiple cantrips in a short time will cost 1 HP after the first cantrip. To cast the spell, make the appropriate skill check vs a DC 5 + (10 per spell level). Spontaneous caster classes get a list of spells known, and they can cast those spells by using the right spell school. They do not need to put ranks into the specific spells. Caster classes can not spend slots on spells cast without the normal rules for the class. I.E. a sorcerer can learn extra spells by putting ranks into specific spells they don't have from the class' spells known, but these extra spells can not be cast using spell slots. Metamagic increases the DC accordingly, but only requires one spell level higher slot to be expended, except for metamagic that only costs +1 slot normally, in which case they only increase the DC but not the slot. (for example, quicken spell raises the DC by 40 [4 spell levels at +10 each] and requires one spell level slot higher than the quickened spell normally uses, while still spell uses the normal slot for the spell and only raises the DC by +10) Using this homebrew rule, increase a full caster's skill ranks per level by 4, and a half caster's skill ranks per level by 2, and a low caster's skill ranks per level by 1. OPTIONAL RULE
Spontaneous casters use metamagic cheaper, increasing the check DC by +5 per spell level increase instead of +10. This makes prepared casting vs spontaeous casting feel even more different and gives each an extra advantage over the other.
Skill Based Combat:
This rule is simply because I prefer skill based, and thus this gets rid of BAB and CMBas unique mechanics and turns them into skills that work like other skills. Obviously, the other half of attacks and combat maneuvers, AC and CMD respectively, also become skills. There is some additional math, but it's all preparatory math that is dealt with when leveling up, equipping items, etc, and is therefore static during play, in general. Each weapon proficiency is a skill, and being trained in said skill counts as having the proficiency while being untrained incurs a -4 penalty to the check and counts as non-proficient. When classes grant proficiency, instead consider that as them being class skills. Non-proficiency "weapons," such as rays from spells or wands, count as skills as well. These include, but not limited to (as I might have missed something), rays, magic "thrown" such as acid splash, and magic bolts like the bead of a fireball. Armor and shield types become skills with a skill for each armor/shield proficiency. Weapons are quite obvious, you make a skill check with the appropriate skill for the weapon used whenever an attack roll is called for. Armor skill uses either the skill ranks or the armor's bonus, whichever is lower, to a minimum of half the armor's bonus. When not rolling AC, the dice is replaced with 10, just like normal (in case this is ever used with the standard "players roll all the dice" variant). Each rank in the armor skill beyond the armor's bonus reduces some of the penalties of the armor. Each extra rank reduces arcane spell failure by 5%, and every 2 extra ranks reduces the armor's skill check penalty by 1 (except for swim, for which the penalty is purely the weight causing one to sink and can't be overcome by armor skill at all). Every 5 extra points of armor skill beyond the armor's bonus increases the armor's effective armor bonus by 1. Any bonuses that apply to normal AC applies to these skill checks. When it comes to stacking, such as armor bonus from a spell, skill ranks and armor bonus count as the same thing and don't stack. Magic armor, such as from the spell or a magic item granting an armor bonus, counts as it's own skill. You can use a magic item providing such a bonus against incorporeal threats and not worry about it's impact on regular armor should it be too little to improve regular armor, I.E. you could have bracers of armor and regular armor even if the regular armor is better than the bracers, thus letting the character immediately use the bracers against ghosts or other incorporeal attacks. Unarmored defense normally can't parry weapons like armor can, and thus is an independent skill but which takes a -4 penalty inherently. However, natural armor or DR against physical damage reduces this to only -2. (this is because A, armor is normally used to parry and deflect attacks, an option unavailable to one without armor, and B, it maintains armor's advantage over unarmored individuals, otherwise everyone would just put ranks into unarmored and ignore armor altogether.) Any bonuses to touch AC apply to this skill. Shields apply their shield bonus to Armor checks or unarmored defense checks, and extra ranks can work exactly like armor such as increasing the shield's bonus for every 5 extra ranks. They can also be used with unarmored defense, as well as against touch attacks (where the shield takes the damage if the shield's bonus was the difference between being hit or not). Shields double their bonus against ranged attacks if the target knows of the incoming ranged attack. (this gives shields an actual advantage and makes them feel different from armor. Also reflects what they are actually good at) Touch attacks. If the defender knows to expect a touch attack, they roll unarmored defense, even if they are wearing armor (armor check penalties still apply though). However, if they don't know to expect touch attacks, such as from a successful faint or are unfamiliar with such attacks from the enemy (such as fighting an unknown monster), then they roll unarmored at a -2. Flat-footed AC is 10 + size + half the armor's bonus + 2 if the target is significantly moving (such as fighting someone else or being defensive against an unseen foe). Natural armor applies fully to all the defensive skills. Aid another works as normal for attacks and defense.
Character Advancement:
This splits raw power from level, allowing a few adjustments to easily customize the power of a campaign. You could have 20 levels of advancement while remaining at normal human levels of power, or you could start at level 1 with the high raw, but untrained, power of a superhero. The basic premise is to split levels into skill levels and power levels. Both count towards gaining feats (at 2nd level and every four levels thereafter) and ability score increases (every 4th level as normal). Skill levels let you gain skill points. Gaining skill ranks requires a number of points equal to the rank. So gaining the second rank in a skill would require 2 points, and the third rank would cost 3 more points for 6 points total to go from 0 ranks to 3 ranks. Likewise, Ability scores require a number of points equal to the modifier to improve. Thus lower scores will improve faster. Power levels is when a character gains a level in a class, gaining those class features and establishing how many skill ranks they gain per level until the next power level. Power levels also gain skill points. Using this, we could have a 20 standard level campaign gain 100 levels without expanding beyond the desired power level. I like this concept for pbp as I have only thrice ever leveled up a pbp character (not including a single character in my only long lasting pbp as a player), but even those three level ups felt ages apart. More levels to be gained gives that feeling of advancement more often which is good for slower paced methods of play. I've also always felt feat and skill starved in pf1 and 3.x and this fixes that, granting 22 feats up till level 90. The premise of this homebrew is highly flexible and intended to be adjusted to the desired campaign, similarly as one might adjust E6 to fit their desires. For this Hell's Rebels campaign, I figure on sticking with pf1's classic zero to demigod progression having power levels at level 1 and every that is a multiple of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc). XP required to level is obviously a lot smaller, level*(level-1)*24. This is the same formula as normal except normal xp is *500 instead of *24. Using this formula, the 190,000 xp to reach level 20 is now just shy of the 192,240 xp required to reach level 90, which in this game is the 19th power level. Alternate Dice:
The idea here is that instead of a d20 or 3d6, dice are rolled based on stats. A new stat tier, and two ability scores. Tier 4 is a normal person. Tier 5 is an elite, and tier 6 is a hero. Ability score modifiers are different however, equaling (score-1)/4. Each die is sized twice the static value, so tier 4 is a d8, and strength mod of 2 is a d4. Applies two abilities scores to every check however. (Tier represents a character's agency in their life. Tier 4 is rather reactive, taking life as it comes and just dealing with the consequences, but tier 5 is more active, actively seeking to advance one's life goals, while tier 6 can affect the course of the world in seeking their goals.)
Health system:
The idea here is that instead of just HP, health is two parts, vitality points and injuries. Deaths should happen most often from injuries, but one could die from losing VP however VP also covers fatigue and morale. VP represents general and nonspecific damage, such as poison, bloodloss, bruises, fatigue, morale, etc. Injuries represent actually getting seriously hurt, such as taking an axe to the face. Injuries are not points, but rather a bit freeform. When taking an injury, roll HD against the damage for severity. If the injury is severe enough, it can kill, but if minor enough it might just be a gash or broken bone. VP is equal to constitution score squared. Every multiple of con score in damage taken results in a -1 penalty to all checks, and status checks occur. Status check depend on the type of attack and damage, but for players would usually only apply for falling unconscious or similar, but for npcs these can be morale checks to see if they keep fighting or try to break off. Injuries occur on critical hits or when an attack exceeds defense by twice the defender's con modifier. I.E. if your con modifier is 3, then if an attack beats your AC by 6, you'd take an injury. The severity of the injury is determined by rolling the attack's damage against the defender rolling their HD. If the damage exceeds the HD by 10, the defender fall unconscious and dying. If damage exceeds the HD roll by 5, the defender becomes disabled. If the damage exceeds the HD roll then a significant injury occurs such as a broken or severed arm. If damage is less than the HD roll, then the injury will be smaller and apply a minor penalty of some sort, such as slower speed if the leg is hit.
Whew, that's a lot of writing. This covers some of the basic things I want to try. Let me know what you guys think of these. I couple smaller things I want to try but I'm out of time for writing, are armor as dr, damage types having different functionalities, players rolling the dice, etc.
I figured I'd put myself out there for hire as a GM. But since I work 12-16 a day, 7 days a week, I literally can't afford to be cheap. I can't afford to GM unless I'm getting paid at least as much as I'd make working a different job. So I'm asking what people would expect from a paid GM. What would be worth it, what wouldn't?
I can't seem to find the forum rules. My google searches just bring up the subforums for particular systems. I primarily just want to know if and where I might offer paid GMing services and the details of such. But I can't find the rules of the forum.
I've got the season 6 scenarios, and I'm looking to try out some alternative rules of my design. Therefore I'm putting out a call for No need to play all of these, these are what I want to try but if everyone is like "not that one" then we don't try it. If everyone likes one enough to keep using it in following scenarios, or wants to try a combination, we can. If you don't want to try these, I'd still love some feedback on why and what you think of them. Some of the rules I want to try out (we can try out just one change per scenario or multiple at player's choice). Just the general concepts. 1) Dice. Roll a d8 plus two dice based on ability scores. This is in place of the d20, so all other modifiers are the same. 2) Vitality and Injuries and spell slots. HP is calculated differently giving you a ton of HP, but at key points you take fatigue penalties. Getting hit hard enough or criticals or similar will cause injuries. It's intended that most kills should be via injuries rather than HP depletion. HP becomes two things, first it becomes a resource to manage that your enemy can affect. Second, it becomes your weariness and fatigue. Third, with bleed effects, it becomes a more interesting way to bleed out and fight while on the brink of death, the time for final words and similar tropes. As a resource, it powers spellcasting instead of slots, as well as per day effects and similar. Fatigue effects and costs also operate through HP. Barbarians for example pay for rage with HP instead of a condition. 3) Ability Score Generation. 4d4 per stat, add 5 point buy points, the rolls in order swap two. Minimum equivalent point buy of 15 points. 4) Skill based combat rolls. BAB and related don't exist. You have skills for various weapons, armors, etc. Attack rolls are a skill check vs a skill check (one side averages rather than actually rolling, just like with normal AC). More skillpoints are gained to offset needing to buy more skills. For defense, you get the lower of your skill or armor bonus. High enough skillpoints adds to an armor's bonus. 5) Skill based spellcasting. Casting a spell requires a skill check. Spell level gives DC to cast spell at 1cl, each point exceeding that DC increases cl by 1. 6) Power and leveling. The idea here is that lots more levels are gained, but many abilities and effects based on level are instead based on power. The goal is threefold, first, the separation of raw numerical power from level allows treating them independently, thus you could have a campaign of superheroes that start off not knowing how to handle their immense power, or alternatively have a full length campaign without ever growing beyond what real world people can achieve. Second, makes it easier for power to be increased in ways other than leveling (one of my settings has "physical" material you pick up that increases your magic power). Third, power can be split, having greater power for some effects but not others, allowing more interesting build choices, buffs, and magic item boosts. 7) Pact magic. A feat tree way of dealing with granting power to others, as a patron might grant power to warlocks. This should give more customization and actually feel like extra power above a character's normal abilities. Instead of warlocks being a class, warlocks are normally built and then a deal is struck between player and GM and the player gets a few extras along with a few obligations. Using these extras requires skill and practice however, requiring skillpoint investment in something that can be withdrawn and lost. Plus plot hooks.
Saves are not the best mathematically. Especially at higher levels where things trend towards either always succeeding or always failing as the gap between good saves and poor saves gets ridiculous. Thus, I have an alternative to use as a baseline for saves and DCs. Saves
Good saves get an extra +4 (or you can think of it as a +2 instead of a -2, same end result). DCs
Notably, this includes spells and SLAs. No longer does SL increase save DC. This does require a change to the Heighten Spell metamagic, which also has the side benefit of keeping low level spells more relevant at higher levels. Heighten Spell increases the DC of a spell by 1 for each spell level higher the slot used to cast a spell is above the spell's spell level. You might even consider just making that the norm instead of requiring metamagic. Assuming equal ability scores and equal levels and ties as failures, then poor saves have 40% success rate and good saves 60% success rate for any level. Thus, a difference in level matters, meaning that 5th level characters have 20% more difficulty making saves than 9th level characters, but notably, the difference between attacker and defender, each level of difference is 5% in favor of the higher level character. The big advantage here though is that it keeps the variability in saves and DCs a relevant aspect of strategy and tactics. And gives incentive to balance out ability scores somewhat. Now, casters will naturally have good scores for their DCs vs often secondary scores for saves, plus casters getting spel focus or similar bonuses. This is balanced out somewhat by gear generally only giving save bonuses not DC bonuses. Still, some may not agree with that, in which case, an optional rule can be implemented to not only give variety to casters but to make it so casters can't focus everything into blanket DC increases. The optional rule is to have different spell schools have different ability scores contribute to their DC. Evocation DCs can be based on dex, while Enchantments based on cha, just as examples. This means that casters can't just increase one ability score to improve every aspect of all their spells. Making casters MAD in this way can also somewhat counter the martial vs caster disparity a bit as well, even if just in a small way (depending on your opinion of the matter). Trap DCs should also follow this as well as any other DCs for saves. This gives characters a decent chance even if they aren't focused on it like a rogue. Anyway, go ahead and tear it apart and tell me everything wrong with it, and most importantly, try it out. :)
This is just an interest check right now, it'll take a bit to set up if this goes forward. If you like the idea, let me know even if you don't plan on joining in (but let me know if you would join or not so I can plan that part). The basic idea is that players, whether alone or in parties, are all dropped on a map and must escape to the center where only 6 people can leave alive. Rather than an outright circle of death, the map has monsters and in particular, a monstrous horde is invading from the map borders which acts as the push towards the center, of course, you also have to reach the escape chamber in the center to win as well. I figure on including some survival elements such as needing food and water with the in-game time frame of about a month. This will be more combat-as-war, so don't expect every encounter to be matched to your level and party. Other aspects to be included are that spell materials and foci must individually be found, much like how weapons and armor must be found. There are some other things I'd like feedback on to decide whether to incorporate, such as an alternate health system that I think enhances the survivalist feel of the game, vitalizing spellpoints rather than slots, and 3d6 over d20. Everyone starts at level 1, but xp are kinda like items that you steal from those you kill. So if you kill a level 3 PC, you gain their XP. This character generation should include the general choices made at each level so it's quick and easy to jump up in levels, but not required. If I run this, I'll do it somewhat slowly, aiming at 3 posts per week minimum. I might go faster when I can (assuming all players keep up), but as I work 7 days a week, I'm only promising 3/week and will slow down to that at need. I'm willing to accept multiple groups or even individuals. I've already got some plans in place for dealing with timing. The map can either be a big island, or perhaps more fitting, a massive dungeon. So what do you guys think? What would you change or avoid changing? If this succeeds, I might even run this seasonally.
I am looking to test new mechanics, and as I have two unusual shifts this weekend, I can run some long sessions starting around 7 or 8 at night central time. As few people want to try a totally new system, I figure on running a few short modules each introducing a single change, to be kept or discarded depending on whether the players liked the change or not. Some of the changes I want to try, >Alt dice, players roll a 1d12 plus dice from two ability scores for all checks that would normally roll a d20. >Skill-based combat rolls >Skill-based magic >Alt health/injury/fatigue system that makes seeking injuries the key way to win rather than hp depletion, but many factors, such as spellcasting and fatigue, cost from a much larger pool of hp, making hp a resource to manage over a whole adventure. >Class-less character building that allows for more leveling up but with raw numerical power separately manageable, so you could have 100 levels over a full AP scale campaign yet you can stay in the tier desired, so stick with gritty realism for a hundred levels or start as superheroes with power but not yet skilled in it's use. ===
===
Here be the speeches!
I figure I'll start with three points today. 1) I'll be running this largely like a class with plenty of room for discussion, input, feedback, and corrections. This is because I believe that GMing a game has the same artistic capabilities as a writer, musician, filmmaker, painter, etc. Art deserves to be studied and advanced through academia and I want to start the ball rolling on a more academic view and "professional" study of the art of gamemastery. This also means that I will presenting things in regards to various styles and different ways of playing as well as examining the very notion of the different ways of playing and what they might be best suited for. This means there is neither one-true-wayism nor focusing on just what works for you in your basement. This is looking at a broad spectrum. 2) Morality. I want to make a note here. I'm not saying "you must be moral when playing!" I'm not because I don't believe that, but I do believe that habits in decision making during games will over extended time bleed into the real world and therefore should be considered carefully. Consider how younger generations that grew up with video games don't apply morality to political enemies anymore. While I can't prove it, I've been around long enough to notice that common people ceasing to apply moral worth to opposing political views has occured as video gamers grew up. And I notice how video games always present bad guys as things to fight to the death. It's not exclusively that way, but it's the default now. There is a rumor, and I can't confirm it, but I'll tell it because it demonstrates a very big difference in thought process regarding morality between the past and now. Rumor has it, that the drow were introduced as being so completely evil in order to solve a moral problem, namely that bandits and similar were run like they were real people and therefore would run away or surrender rather than fight to the death, but then players would face a difficult moral conundrum in how to deal with the prisoners, thus, drow were supposedly introduced as completely irredeemable so players could just slaughter them without remorse and without the moral problems. Modern players don't even consider morality at all. Quite literally you get cases like the real example below,
We didn't find out what it was, and it never took any aggressive action. The other players assumed it was evil and certainly didn't ascribe any moral value to doing anything other than outright slaughter. This bothers me, because I see this exact same pattern in the real world, and I doubt very much that it's a coincidence that kids get habituated into seeing enemies as having no moral value and basically making a habit of ignoring morality entirely when it comes to enemies, both in the obvious expectation of slaughtering people simply because they are "bad guys" and in the fact that the opposition does the same. I don't think it's simple, nor do I think we should simply avoid all such games, but I do think it's worth paying attention to and considering how the habits formed in playing these games express themselves in the real world. 3) And lastly, game style. This is what I expect to have major discussion about first, because anything else will be handled differently based on what style is being played. This is also a difficult issue. I find that the more experienced a player/gm is when they first deal with drastically different styles, the more difficult it is to wrap their head around the distinctions between styles and even to understand alternative styles at all. I call them styles because genre is unrelated. It's like how film can be anime, cartoon, 3d pixar-like, or live action, yet any genre can be done in any of them. Anime can do horror just as well as live action. But they do have their differences. I can't imagine that Helluva Boss could be done in live action to the same effect. Styles in rpgs though are unexpected though because they have nothing to do with the mechanics. Certainly, the mechanics may be better suited for one style over another, but any mechanics can be adapted to any style. Style is about the perspective on the role of the mechanics and players in the game. For example, in a storytelling game, the role of the players is make their character's interaction in the narrative be a good and entertaining story for the others at the table. This ia very different from what I call the "Halo" style, in which only the gm has to make a good story, the players may have some agency but they are purely audience when it comes to the main points and general structure of the narrative, and the player's mainly worry about navigating the encounters. Now style is a spectrum and there are various ways we can divide, categorize, and name styles, but the point is that style has nothing to do with system nor genre. This is important because how you handle things will be based on style, whether you are consciously considering it, or just operating on your personal biases. Being conscious of style however can help in dealing with new players, or in refining how you prep, if you prep. Sorry the delay in getting this started. I had technical issues yesterday.
This is something I've wanted to do for a while now. Unlike my GM advice and tutorials I've seen, this one is intended as a deeper more professional and more academic study. Sure, most GMs are simply playing with friends or small comfy sessions online, but just like how the art of music is worthy of college level study and people making a career out of developing music theory, I believe the art of GMing is also worthy of such deeper study. Therefore, this game I'm proposing is intended to be just that, a more academic study and look at being a GM. Much like Sanderson's lectures on writing, the idea is to be serious and pretend we are studying this to be actual certified professionals, which will still benefit those who aren't going to do more than GM for their friends. This will probably start off discussing game styles and what different kinds of players want from the game, that way, later discussions can note how certain concepts have a different role for different styles. We'll be taking a few pregens and going through a few encounters and modules, but there will also be lots of discussion as we do so, bringing up concepts of how and why I as the GM make certain choices, and how that affects player experience. I have been studying RPGs from this academic standpoint for over a decade, and naturally I feel I have a certain expertise, but I still expect this to be a two way talk and exploration of the concepts brought up. I figure starting in a month or so. If you're interested please say so below, or ask questions.
This is an idea I had to make magic more interesting, but also to balance magic against martials in a different way, making it riskier and more challenging to accomplish and with more ability score involvement. Basically make it so casters need to balance a lot a factors, and the more powerful the more risky and costly. Martials get to be rather simple and reliable in comparison. That said, casters in this homebrew don't have the same per day limits, which means failure doesn't cost some limited resource from the whole day, but just a cost to action economy (and the character's ego :). # Intelligence modifier sets maximum spell level the caster can cast. # Charisma modifier modifies caster level of spell for things like duration, area, range, number of targets, etc (basically, the things at the top of the spell description that all spells have when applicable), but not the core effects like number of dmg dice. Also modifies the spell DC. # Constitution caps spell slots. Spells up to a spell level equal to the con modifier can be cast be cast up to once per round. The caster must wait a number of rounds equal to the level of a spell minus the con modifier since the last spell cast in order to cast again. Put another way, casting a spell exhausts spell energy to 0+con modifier, and the caster must recharge one spell level of energy per round amd can only cast a spell if they have enough. Spell slots however, bypass this recharge sequence, allowing more spells of higher level to be cast within a limited time frame. Constitution is the ability score that determines bonus spell slots. A negative con modifier multiplies the time to recharge each spell level of energy, multiplying the time before casting another spell without using a slot. A -1 is x2 the time, a -2 is x3, a -3 is x4, and a -4 is x5. A -5 means the character does not recharge without sleeping and must rely on slots. Spell slots are recharged with 15 minutes of meditation per spell level. A special dream trance can be entered to refresh all slots at once and provide the benefits of sleep, but must be intentional (getting knocked unconscious or passing out doesn't count), but takes four times as long. Slots do not recharge on their own. # Casting a spell requires a skill check with a DC = 5 + (5*spell level). Metamagic modifies this cast DC but still counts as the normal spell level otherwise (except heithen which is entirely about raising Spell DC and other advantages keyed to spell level). There is a skill for each individual spell, all count as subskills of spellcraft, so any bonuses to spellcraft apply. Casting classes, upon receiving a level of spellcasting, gain skillpoints that can only be spent on spell skills, general spellcraft, or k arcana. Full casters get 6 points, medium casters get 4, and low casters get 2. Regular skillpoints may be spent on these skills even by those with no class levels in casting classes, and be able to cast spells, though they lack slots. [Alternative: I love this thematically, as a mage can have different levels of proficiency for different spells and get better at particular spells over time, or the hilarity of being terrible at particular spells. But it hogs skillpoints way too much to be used without some alteration to gaining skillpoints. However, if you want to avoid the skillpoint complications, you can instead just have a subskill for each school of magic, or just spellcraft, but if you do, then only spells chosen by the spell mastery feat can be cast spontaneously (of those explicitly allowed, such as clerics with cure/inflict spells.)] If the casting check fails, the spell fizzles. If it fails by 5 or more, something goes wrong, a magical mishap of some sort. If the check succeeds, the spell is cast at CL 1. However, for every 5 points by which the DC is exceeded, the CL for the core effect increases. For example, a fireball spell is DC 5+(5*3)=20, so if the caster gets a 25 on the check to cast the fireball, it gets deals 2d6 dmg, or if the check result was 30, it'd be 3d6 dmg. # Prepared vs Spontaneous. All casters can cast spontaneously what spells they have ranks in (or know via spell mastery feat). However, a caster can prepare a spell ahead of time, allowing them to take 10 on the casting check, but also must make nearly all the choices ahead of time (such as protection from energy, which energy is chosen at casting time, or how many targets for a multiple target spell, etc). It takes 10 times the listed casting time, minimum 5 minutes. It takes an hour per spell level to take 20 on the casting check. A prepared spell can be cast as a standard action regardless of the normal casting time, though a handful of spells can be cast faster, such feather fall or those modified by the quicken spell metamagic. A prepared is unstable and has a 5% * spell level squared, minimum 5%, per day (24 hours), and each hour spent unconscious, of fading beyond usability and fizzling if attempted to be cast. Spells can only be prepared in slots. # learning spells,
# Placing spells
To place a spell that doesn't hit or select a target creature/object, you must hit the square with a ranged touch attack unless it emanates from the caster and remains within close range (like burning hands). Placing a spell has a range increment of 15' plus 5'* int mod. Failing to hit the target square drifts 1d4 * 5' per range increment to targeted square. Roll a d12 to determine direction of drift, favoring the spaces towards/away from the caster (not to the sides). Or whatever grenade drift scheme you are familiar with. This applies to conjuration and short range teleports. The ranged touch for some spells, like fireball, will be rolled like any other, as it involves some projectile reaching target area, and can benefit from things like true strike. Others, like conjuring in a summoned creature, use int instead of dex, and can't benefit from effects/bonuses intended to improve aim with projectiles. # Balance
Magic is ultimately versatile but takes a broader base of support to work, depending on multiple ability scores and requiring a skill check to cast in addition to any checks required to hit. Ok people, tear it up. Break it. Have fun with it. Tell me what you think.
I run a game on Saturdays,
It is pretty sandboxy with missions scattered about. The system has a basis in d20, so the overall flow of gameplay will be familar to 3.x/pf1 players, but the details are altered. The core mechanic for example, instead of all static modifiers to a d20, you roll dice based on your stats and add the total, like the variable modifiers rule and the 3d6 rule from the unearthed arcana book mashed together. A few other tweaks, like hp/injury where injuries are detrimental effects rather than a number, and skills can specialize, i.e. perception can then specialize into spot and listen. I have two players, one that is new to gaming in general, but hoping to add a couple more. The setting started off as me explaining several pokemon things, such as why there are pokemon centers everywhere, elite four for each region, etc, but eventually grew into my own thing and set on my own world. Anybody interested?
I've picked up baldurs gate again, and I was thinking that I rather liked the multiclassing in that game. I also realized that something like it could be applied to 3.x/pf1. I don't really know enough of pf2 or 5e to know if it'd work for those systems though. So here is my rough sketch, and then you guys can tear it to pieces below. I call this simo-classing, like simultaneous classing. You pick multiple classes at first level. These are selected in a particular order that doesn't change. You gain the hd/hp, bab, and base save bonuses from the first class. [Optional. I normally disallow stacking the +2 bonus for good saves, so in this rule variant, all the good saves from the chosen classes get the +2 upfront. If you choose to allow those +2s to stack, just treat them as part of the normal save bonus.] Take all other non-stacking class features from all the selected classes. At first, no class features can apply to the features from the other classes. You gain xp at a rate equal to 50% + (50% divided by the number of classes taken). As you gain enough xp to reach another character level, you gain the hd/hp, bab, and save bonuses from the next class, each in their order. Additionally, at each of these levels, you can choose to allow a class feature to impact the features of another class. The features in question must still be able to work together normally anyway. This variant rule doesn't allow features to work together if they wouldn't normally do so under the standard rules. Once enough xp has been earned to buy the first level in all the classes chosen, you repeat this process. This can only be chosen at first level, and if the character ever deviates from this path, such as choosing a prestige class, they can't advance the chosen classes individually, nor may they return to the progression, once a character is off the path, they can't return to it. The exception to this is if a class is paired with racial hd, and progressed forward. Once all the racial hd are bought, the regular class/es can continue to progress. So what do you guys think?
One thing that I noticed in minecraft builds, was that most designs were crafted like they had real world physics. For example, lightposts always had to go to the ground as though the pole was required to hold up the light, even though it actually isn't. This got me thinking about how different things would be with minecraft like physics. So I'm developing a setting where the physics of the setting are inspired by minecraft physics, though I'm adding plenty of personal twists to it. Fair warning, I dive way too deep into the nuance. I figure some may find it interesting. ===
-Blocky Nature. Having objects tend towards blocky shapes. A difference from minecraft though, is that I figure objects and materials will naturally form into a variety of shapes, but cubes are just the most common. I'm thinking the shapes are primarily the Platonic solids, but also sphere, torus, and sheet. -Locked in space. Another aspect to keep is how blocks can be locked in space and don't move unless broken or under special circumstances. I figure on giving materials different strengths that dictate how much effort it takes to move. However, there is also the question of locked in space relative to planet but not the sun. -Liquids with source blocks but also flow beyond that fed by the source. ===
Now, multiple objects can bond on different levels. So, at the core level, a core bond, two objects can bond into a singular new object. This can repeat into a variety of scales, from atoms to planets. The next level of bond is a rigid bond, in which the two objects remain separate objects but stayed locked together external forces act on them together. The third level of bond is a flexible bond, in which two objects seem attached and affect each other, forces acting on one doesn't inherently act on the other. The last level of bonding is the field bond. In which the two objects interact but in non-obvious ways. This is the kind of bond that gets magnetism, gravity, spacial locking, etc. When objects merge with a core bond, the resulting object is the next scale up. An object, as a projection, has the physical form that is the intermediary in which objects interact based on physical form by default. But they also have an aura, which is what field bonds interact with. Thus, a planet has an aura, and blocks get locked in place in the aura of the planet. Objects in the planet's aura get moved with the planet and don't feel any effect of the planet's motion. This is also how a block locked in space relative to the planet, still moves relative to other planets or the star, because the whole planet and everything in the planet's aura moves together because of the field bond. ===
An object can still be in a number of states. Some states can be achieved only by certain materials, and there are two spectrums of states. The first spectrum is solid, liquid, and gas, which all materials can be, based on heat. Different materials change state at different levels of heat. Some materials can be gel state or flow state, or a few other states instead. The solid state is locked in place, rigid, and resists being affected by forces. The liquid state has a source block, but projects material that flows and interacts at a distance, like water or lava in minecraft. The difference from minecraft is that the distance and amount is limited, so for example, water flows 7 blocks, period the end, never further. Also different liquids flow differently. Some might flow upwards instead of down for example. The air state flows from a source block like a liquid, but in all directions, and the source block freely moves and responds to pressure, so it moves and has buoyancy. Objects can normally move through liquid or air state materials. The gel state is like the liquid state in that other objects can move through it, but it does not spread (think the powder snow in minecraft that you can fall into and get frozen). The flow state is like a solid except it is not locked in space and can move around. Like sand or gravel in minecraft. The second spectrum. This spectrum is about the object's physical projection. An object can be in the set state, like when you've placed a block in minecraft. Then there is the collapsed state, like a broken block in minecraft that is waiting to be picked up. This state can still interact with other things, can't pass through solid objects, etc. But does not lock in space and the object itself is in a kind of stasis. A clock in the collapsed state does not count the time for example. Then there is the unprojected state, in which the object is no longer physical and gets sticky with the existence of other existences of objects but doesn't react physically and has no physical form. Can still be interacted with magically. This is like objects in your inventory in mineceaft. Of course, the unprojected and collapsed states are unstable and objects will eventually return to the set state. --
===
Creatures can also go from set to collapsed to unprojected states. But it is much more difficult as creatures are more complex than simple substances. This is how some magics work. A petrification spell collapses the creature's liquid blocks. A stasis spell puts the whole creature into the collapsed state. A teleport spell makes the whole creature, or object, into the unprojected state and moves it as a pure non-physical entity to the destination where it explodes into the set state again. === In any case, these are some ridiculously deep explanations for how the physics of the setting work to produce a minecraft like world. There's plenty of additional details to work out, but I figured I would present what I have so far, and see what kind of hate mail I can get. Maybe someone out there will like it or at least find it inspiring. I plan on making a rogue-like mix of minecraft, pokemon, and DnD. So, someday this may result in something playable, and seeing a water source block with a teardrop hanging from it will be quite interesting to see.
Given that I'm putting my own rules together, I've been thinking about the more controversial things and how I can be clear about them and my intent for using them. Alignment us of course, a big one. I have a degree in psychology, and that affects my perspective here. This is how I like to break it down. First, I like to think of each alignment axis as being a scale with a score amd a bell curve, just like rolling ability scores, and people get 3d6. But, only the most extreme 10% on either axis actually have an alignment other than neutral. So, for example, only the 5% most lawful people have the lawful alignment, and the 5% most chaotic have the chaotic alignment, and everyone else is neutral between lawful and chaotic. Good vs evil is about the focus of a person's morality. A good person, honestly doesn't even consider themselves in making decisions. When they see a problem, they move to fix it. When doing a cost-benefit analysis, they forget to consider themselves in the costs and benefits. If you've watched Fruits Basket, the main character is exactly this. She ends up living in a tent and no one in her life knows about it until it is discovered by accident because she doesn't want to bring people down by telling them. She is so focused on making everyone around her feel better, she literally does not take into consideration the costs to herself. Another example is personal. I've seen people in danger, and I responded based on them. I literally did not even realize the risk to myself, all I saw was the risk to others. And I see the same in stories sometimes.
Fallout Equestria is a decent example. Littlepip saves others whatever the cost to herself. She even feels guilty about having saved somepony and then not helping them get home. Seriously, Fallout Equestria is my number 1 favorite book if all time, and Littlepip is my paragon example of Neutral Good alignment. Evil on the other hand. I tend to think of evil as coming in two flavors, selfish and monstrous. Both stem from the opposite of the above. They don't really think of the consequences to others, only to themselves. So if someone is having a problem, they either see it as no different than wind moving leaves or they see an opportunity for themselves to gain, in either case they simply don't register in their mind the consequences for someone else. Selfish is of course the more realistic evil of people who are simply pursuing their own goals regardless of who gets in the way. These folks do not see themselves as evil, but rather either consider themselves as being practical or have some weird justification, such as claiming power as the only real morality. Monstrous is the more cartoonish evil of people seeking evil for evil's sake, calling themselves evil and loving it, and/or having over the top evil plans like world destruction or similar. These are the ones that revel in evil, torture for the enjoyment of it and similar. Lawful vs chaotic is more like method or metric. Lawful considers behavior and state as the basis of morality. Chaotic considers expected results as the basis of morality. Thus, a lawful person mught consider lying bad because it is lying, regardless of the reason or justification for it, while a chaotic person considers only the expected result and if lying is the obvious way to get that result then lying is perfectly acceptable. Of course, unlike good vs evil, there isn't an ideal correct answer between lawful and chaotic. Chaotic is based on expected results, and thus can easily miss longer term results or the less obvious consequences, but lawful can be in-flexible when flexibility might be called for. Lawful people tend to be the ones that are better prepared for things going wrong, and can end up as the "mom" of the group, while the chaotic people tend to take immediate action and improvise, which can make the difference when facing the unexpected without time to analyze and plan. ===
What do you guys think?
This is a game that takes place in my own setting and using my own rules system. I have discussed this in another thread to figure out which campaign was to be run, so most players are already chosen, but there may be room. I'm aiming for around 6 players, but I'm not opposed to 1 or 2 more if everyone is good with it. This campaign takes place in my take on the abyss, a place in the outer planes. Creatures native to places outside the material plane are actually just spirits. Living things that die, get ejected from the material plane (except under special conditions) and then exist in the outer planes. Slowly over time, those in the outer planes will change to reflect their inner personalities, which leads to demons, angels, and other such beings. Spirits of the outer planes do not grow like living things do. They only way for spirits to become more powerful, is to consume the soul energy of other spirits. When a person sells their soul to a demon, that demon intends on consuming the soul. When this happens, that person ceases to exist and is thus permanently gone. Not even the Allmother, the goddess of this universe, can bring them back. The outer realms is a dangerous place, and the Abyss is the prison realm, which is very difficult to leave. This campaign takes place there, in the seedy underworld of the universe. Some Lore Notes:
There is one major deity, The Allmother Emanon, and she is an active god, but there are a number of demigods. IC excerpts from the church:
With the enemy defeated, she set about remaking all of creation according to her own design." The peoples,
To the elves she gifted skillfullness, grace, and pride. To the kobolds she gifted perseverance, mental fortitude, and wrath. To the dwarves she gifted insight, toughness, and greed. To the goblins she gifted numbers, fearlessness, and envy. To the dragons she gifted prowess, magic, and sloth. To the darklings she gifted curiousity, power, and gluttony. To the children of Drunin and Elelabeth, the humans, she granted diversity, adaptability, and lust." OOC
The sins listed as gifts are found in all races, but are particularly iconic of the races listed above. Elves are very prideful, dwarves greedy, etc. Further, to become a priest/shamem/etc, the Allmother has a test to be passed. The priest to be gets infected with lycanthropy (the specific animal is based on individual, not the person they got bit by, so for example, one bitten by a werewolf might become a wererat) and they must master the beast and gain control of it, then they must enter one of the divine dungeons of sufficient depth/difficulty and finish it without using the beast at all. Only then are they accepted as priests. Priests are thus highly respected, powerful, and feared. That said, mastering lycanthropy does not need to make one a priest. Lycanthropy is not rampant, but most who get infected never master it, and can be driven mad by their guilt and fear and other feelings that come from their failing to master the beast, sometimes even giving up entirely and letting the beast win, thus becoming a problem. ---
Notably, orcs are a type of goblin. Halflings are a type of human. Catdragons are a type of darkling (both of these are entirely my own creation). These races are recognizable as such, but their history, culture, and some minor traits are very different. There is a story to the creation of humans. In the early days of creation, a dwarf and elf fell in love but couldn't have kids for obvious reasons. Both being well-known and powerful members of their community, collected many priests together to beg the Allmother for children. The Allmother was inspired when the possibilities for children reminded her of humans from before the worlds were destroyed, so she recreated humans and gave them as children to dwarf and elf couple. An elf and dwarf together always have human children, and so sometimes humans are known as dwelfs. Kobolds and goblins are known as original races and thus have a certain legitimacy religiously speaking, but goblins of all sorts have remained largely barbaric with very few individuals ever joining the more civilized societies, and are often considered as failures as a race. Kobolds have many barbarian tribes, but also many civilized ones. But many dislike dealing with kobolds, and kobolds are well known for over-reacting to provocation and many villages have been destroyed for insulting kobolds. Thus, they are a bit of a wildcard, in many places there is a tenuous peace and even trade, but also very common to encounter them as enemies. ---
The stars are different worlds, of which nine are the favored realms and first of the stars to be made. These worlds are material worlds. The dead can't exist on material worlds without an anchor of some sort. Anchoring the dead to the world is usually evil, but a rare few accept this willingly, despite being considered a great sacrifice, including the famed Dreadwraiths, a military unit serving the empire of Sarvolka and regarded as the most terrible unit to face. Once the dead have been separated from their body, nothing known can fix that, except a ancient myths claiming it is possible, which are generally regarded as false mythology. ---
Angels and demons are usually regarded as mythical, but some point out the existance of spirits as proof other such beings can exist, this is the stereotypical debate topic among theologians. There are a number of sayings about scholars proving demons exist. ---
So, the rules: The below modifications should be generally applicable to either dnd or pf1. I intend to apply them to the ogl as a stand alone system someday, but I'm still writing the material out and organizing and stuff. There is a difference in that the below modifications use classes instead of swapping them out for class feats (which I'm not done with yet), and we will be using the Pathfinder classes. Ask about any supplemental classes outside the core book and APG, as I'm open to considering such things, but will accept them on a case by case basis. Design Philosophy:
These mechanics are not the game. The game has no mechanics. These mechanics are merely a tool that aid the gameplay experience. If you remove all mechanics, you still have the game, but the GM's job is harder and the experience may suffer problems depending on the thinking style of the players and GM. The mechanics mainly serve four functions, communication, add tension/risk to decision-making, providing consistency, and giving inspiration. -Communication
There is another way that communication is aided however. The mechanics themselves say things about the world. For example, the mechanic that ordinary people have 3d6 for all their stats sets the expectations for normal people in the narrative world. it is basically saying that 68% of all people have between 8 and 13 for their stats, which tells you what is normal for this world. Thus, a score of 15 doesn't just say what they can do with their strength, it also says they are stronger than 90% of normal people. -Risk
But when you in the face of possible or even probable failure, then victory is sweet, and close calls are memorable, and sacrifices are meaningful. This can't really be achieved very well when the GM has to decide whether you fail. Even if the GM is very good at being fair and unbiased, it can still feel like the GM is biased and unfair. Thus, using dice or similar to determine success/failure. It isn't really right to for everyone to have the same chances of success for everything. Obviously, a big strong guy should be more likely to break down a door than a scrawny weak guy. Thus, stats that have numbers to affect the outcome according to the character's capabilities. This can also be done in a way that allows the result to be descriptive beyond mere success and failure as well, tying into the communication aspect of mechanics. This risk adds uncertainty to the outcome of choices, making choices meaningful about what risks to take and when, and adding a lot of emotion to the outcome. -Consistency
-Inspiration
In fact, the old ideas of rolling for stats was about this, being given an unknown set of stats and needing to figure out how to utilize it inspires a great deal of creativity. -Final aspect
Not only are the mechanics and choices of the player supposed to align with choices and decisions made by the character, but the mechanics should be associated closely with how the narrative milieu works. Associated mechanics technically refers to the first, to the idea that a choice made by the player corresponds to a choice made by the character based on information the character has. A counter-example is minions in DnD 4e, that the mechanics of how to deal with minions drastically the tactics to use against them, but entirely for reasons that the characters know nothing of, leading to players making choices about minions that their characters would never make because their characters would never have reasons to make those same tactic choices. Another counter-example is a sports maneuver. If playing soccer and your character got a special ability that let them use a bicycle kick once per game, that would be a dissociated mechanic because the character is never ever going to decide to do a bicycle kick then believe they won't be capable of doing it again that game, and that means the character will never ever look at a bicycle kick as a limited resource to be conserved until the time is right. The second aspect though, of the mechanics, numbers, and results of dice rolls being heavily descriptive and tied closely to the functioning of the milieu is my primary reason for using mechanics at all. This seems to be a niche desire among players though. My intent here is to achieve this while being fun for those who don't really care so much about this aspect. It is important to note however, that this leads to a naturalistic balance, not a gamist balance. It also makes it easier to deal with players thinking outside of the box and in-world, as opposed to thinking like a player at a gameboard. This is my philosophy for the system design.
Power:
Power is a stat that basically sets the power level of the character. Things like caster level, maximum skill, and similar things they were based on character/class level, are now tied to power. Power generally corresponds to character level in dnd 3.x/pf1. Thus a power of 1-3 is a gritty real world experience.
How this progresses depends on the type of campaign being run and can even start high despite low levels for new supers type stories. In this particular campaign, Power will start at 1 for everyone and Power will only be improved by acquiring Soul Sparks. Power will improve by one for each power of two the character has in Soul Sparks. Thus, the character will need 4 Soul Sparks for Power 2, and 1048576 Soul Sparks to get power 20 (don't count on getting this high, at least not for a very very long time). Note: this naming scheme is not from the in-world perspective, but you'll have to discover that for yourself in game.
Dice:
Anytime the mechanics I've posted refer to "Ranks," it is referring to a number that affects the dice rolled, while a "bonus" is used for static bonuses to the dice result even if they are normal additions. I use ranks because I have an alternate dice rolling method for in-person games, which I like better, has better dice curve, and is a bit more intuitive, but is also harder to type into a dice-roller tag and not all dice rollers can even do it. The median and maximum values are the same between the two methods, but the bell curve isn't, so the methods shouldn't be mixed, but neither requires adjustments vs the other. Thus, the easy electronic version of the rules: roll 2 dice with a size equal to the ranks for the roll. For example, if you get 2 ranks plus 3 ranks plus 4 ranks, then you would roll 2D9. The d20 is replace by Tier, which for player races is generally 4 ranks (goblins, monsters, and other entities can have different values for this, notably traps). This can actually be improved, but only through great roleplay during high risk moments, the sort of thing that rarely happens and shouldn't be expected. Think of it as the hero's journey step of overcoming the supreme ordeal in a way that requires a major shift in character. I see this a lot in stories, but have only seen it a few times in roleplaying. Standard checks, you add the ranks from Tier and two ability scores for the dice to roll, then add other modifiers as static bonuses in general. Note: Skills do not have default ability scores. Different ability scores will be called for in different situations. Certainly there will be commonly rolled checks that will generally be the same, but different uses of the same skill can easily require different ability scores. If you are familiar with the "Players roll all the dice" variant rule from Unearthed Arcana 3.x, that is basically in use here, all such stats and checks are mentioned as if rolled. Which side actually rolls and which takes a static value (the average of what they would roll) will depend on the situation. For example, as a pbp game, if I initiate an action, I will generally roll against the player so I do not need to wait on a response before moving on. Likewise, players are encouraged to roll for when they initiate actions or when they know a response will be needed, like when the player takes action for which they are subject to an attack of opportunity, the player can just roll AC against it. Another example is spellcasting, when casting a spell that would require a save, roll for the DC. This is generally a "make sense" policy. By always establishing everything as a roll it is flexible and thus there is no need to worry about who is supposed to roll. If you forget or miss something, I can just roll it instead of asking for the check, likewise if you know a check will be coming, you can just roll for it. That said, bosses and certain notable characters may roll even when the player rolls to make things a bit extra exciting and uncertain in those cases.
Ability Scores:
As stated, mechanics are supposed to be descriptive. With certain simplifications elsewhere, and the use of two ability scores for checks, and that ability scores affect dice sizes, I have made two alterations here. First, ability score bonuses are calculated differently. Second, there are twelve ability scores. Ability scores are calculated by this formula: rounddown ( (Score - 1) / 4 )
Thus, an average npc character would roll 8 ranks for 2d16 plus skill modifiers and other bonuses. The twelve ability scores.
Body, the three physical scores are basically unchanged from dnd/pf.
Mind
Soul
Social
Saves:
Saves no longer accrue bonuses from class levels. They are a pair of ability scores and add Power. They are easier to refer to this way and some feats can add bonuses to these. Saves represent reactions other factors that characters do not consciously decide nor choose. I made concentration a save since it's use generally fits the above description of saves, and to reduce the number of unique check types to worry about. Fortitude save: Strength and Constitution. The body's resistance to physical impairments, sickness, poisons, etc.
Skills:
Many non-skills are now skills, such attack rolls, and of note, magic now requires skill checks and thus has skills. Skills are a flat bonus to a check just like normal. Skills can specialize for an additional bonus for specific uses of the skill. For example, the perception skill can gain a specialization into Spot, Listen, and Smell (specializing into one thing does not prevent also learning other specializations). There is no specific list of specializations in general, though in a few places some examples are listed, but at no point should a list of specializations be considered exhaustive. Split skills are those like Knowledge, where a collection of "sub-skills" only need a single description for how they work, but learning one sub-skill does not impact nor count as training for a different sub-skill. Skill list,
[/list] Advancement:
Levels are adjusted with the idea that you can 100 levels for the same kind of campaign that you would gain 20 levels in 3.x/pf1. This gives you more level ups, but each is a bit weaker and they don't really impact the maximum power nearly as much. If power is kept low, you could a level 100 character that is very skilled in many skills and yet is still fit for a pretty gritty kind of game. Character levels give you skillpoints, and every 3 levels gives you a feat, and every 4 levels gives you ability score points. Upon level up, select a number of skills equal to 3 plus your int rank, and put 1 skillpoint into each of those skills. There are no class skills, any class can select any skill. The bonus from a skill requires more and more points to improve, requiring a number of points equal to the bonus to be acquired to advance from the previous bonus. Thus to go from a +2 to a +3 requires 3 skillpoints, and thus requires three levels of selecting the skill. Skills have a maximum bonus equal to 3+power. Beyond this maximum, the cost is triple for each improvement. If you gain power and your maximum bonus increases to the next bonus while you are part way through buying that next bonus, then the next point buys that bonus, and the next bonus starts counting points after that. A specialization counts as it's own skill for the cost of improving it. Thus, to gain a +1 in a specialization costs 1 skillpoint. However, the maximum bonus for specializations is 1/2 the bonus of the skill being specialized rounded down, and this carries down into sub-specializations, so Combat skill with 6 ranks, can specialize in Combat(Precision Blades) up to +3, and then specialize further into Combat(Precision Blades[Epocs]) up to +1 for a total bonus of +10 when using Epocs. Feats are handled the same as normal dnd/pf. Every 4 levels, a character gains ability score points. They select one group of ability scores (body, mind, soul, social) and add 1 point-buy point to each of those scores, and when enough point buy points are achieved, the ability score is improved by 1. When you first create a character, your ability scores have the exact number of point buy points needed to achieve that score. The point buy costs are equal to 1+the rank for that score. Thus,
HP does not grow with level (see the health section below). HD is from class as normal. This game starts with 1 power. For each power a character has, they gain a class level. A class level grants only the class abilities, Hit Dice (but not hitpoints), and bab, though bab is handled differently. Bab is what martials get as a bonus over casters. Classes with 1/2 bab instead get no bab at all. Classes with 3/4 bab get 1/3 bab instead. Classes with full bab keep their full bab. Bab is an ability that when activated, is treated as a magic enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls with weapons. This enhancement bonus does not stack with other enhancement bonuses such as the enhancement bonus from enchanted weapons. A character can spend 1 HP to activate this bonus for 1 minute. This is a supernatural ability. A character with full bab can alternatively spend 1 HP to gain Bab as an enhancement bonus to AC and soak rolls for 1 minute. However, to gain bab as both an offensive bonus and a defensive bonus cost 3 hp. Health:
This is similar to wounds/vitality. Hit points represent a combination of things, importantly including fatigue, non-specific damage such as from poison or toxins, blood-loss, life-drain/negative energy, and is affected by morale (an npc mechanic). A character has a number of hit points equal to Constitution score times their Energy score. Yes this is a massive amount compared to normal dnd/pf1. It is not intended for characters to normally die from losing all their hitpoints. Hitpoints have a number called a "Benchmark." Every time a character loses an amount of HP equal to a benchmark, they make a fort save against DC 10 to stay in the fight. For players, failure generally means falling unconscious, however, npcs and especially animals can potentially run away or surrender instead if they beat the DC 10 but not DC 15. Regardless of the outcome, every benchmark worth of HP lost is a -1 on all checks. Many abilities and other factors cost HP, making this a bit of a balancing act. The real world warriors who fought naked to remain cool and thus have greater endurance, well that is now an actual thing, see below the section on uses for HP. NPCs have morale, and their morale impacts their HP. A low morale NPC will die easier and be more likely to run away or surrender. For every 3 points above 10, an NPC has +1 to their benchmarks, and for every 3 points below 10, they have a -1 to benchmarks. I say this because I do allow hirelings and any animal companions/familiars/mounts/etc are all subject to morale. Critical hits deal normal damage to HP. When a character takes damage equal to one half their Hit Dice, or a critical hit that deals less than that, the character rolls a soak roll (roll all hit dice and add armor and any applicable resistances/dr). If the soak roll is greater than the damage dealt by the attack +5, the character suffers no additional effect beyond the HP lost. If the soak meets or beats the damage dealt, the character is dazed for a round. Else the character suffers an injury. If the character gets hit with a critical that also deals enough damage for a soak roll, the soak roll auto-fails. If this happens with a weapon that has more than a x2 critical multiplier, add the critical multiplier as a flat bonus to severity, so bows with a x3 multiplier add +3 to severity. When a character suffers an injury, they roll for where the injury is and how severe the injury is. Armor by location helps here, as the armor at that location reduces the injury's severity. So helmets are useful. Each injury must be healed individually, via a restoration or similar magic or by natural healing. Location is simply a d40 roll, (odds left, evens right)
Severity is a d20 roll minus the armor value, damage types will modify. 0 or less, minor and inconsequential to the fight, such as a burn non-serious gash, etc.
Con damage reduces the benchmark size appropriately. Natural healing works like normal except 10 times faster for HP, but healing at normal rate, reduce the severity of an injury by 1 for every 5 points healed. Positive energy healing magic, like the standard cure spells, heal 1 HP per power of the caster, every round till it has healed however many HP it would heal normally, Multiple sources stack increasing healing speed. However, if a character gets treated with positive energy healing spells while recovering from an injury, they can heal at double the speed set above, this costs one cure spell every 4*SL hours, potions that were masterwork made work for +1 hour. ---
A character that dies turns into a mist of dim sparkles. A character that touches a mist of dim sparkles absorbs 1d4 soul sparkles per round, 1d6 if immersed, until all the dead character's sparkles have been absorbed. Soul sparkles left alone will dissipate around 1d4 sparkles an hour. This is your soul, death is the elimination of a character from existence. If a spell is not cast to recover you from the state of being mist within 3 rounds, there is no coming back from the dead, period. Further, every death, whether dying as a living thing, or dying as an outsider spirit comes not only loses power, but has a chance of being irrecoverable instantly, at least for NPCs. I will grant PCs plot armor from this aspect, but not hirelings, animal companions, etc. The chance is 5% when dying as a living thing, or 10% if dying as an outsider spirit. However, if an outsider "dies" while on the material plane, they are simply ejected back to the outer plane they were summoned from. Damage Types:
I added a little bit to damage types to make them different in behavior. Should only come into play in certain situations, usually injuries, but it does add a bit of strategy in choosing which damage type to use. Physical damage has Force, take your character's weight and divide by 10 (mark it next your HP tracker or something, along with half that value), if damage exceeds this, then the character is forced backward a 5' step from the impact and makes a balance check to remain standing (if that would be over an edge or into a hazard, get reflex DC = damage dealt to avoid the hazard). Half that much force and the character is halted from moving forward if they were hit from the front while trying to move somewhere, this is how a fighter blocks others from moving past. Bludgeoning deals double damage for this purpose, so compare it to the half value you marked down. Note: There is gameplay math, and chargen math. The idea here is that you write down those values so the math is done in chargen/downtime, and active gameplay needs only make a comparison. This is more technique than a rule, but shifting gameplay math to chargen/downtime is always helpful. Bludgeoning damage is doubled for determining Force, and halved for soak rolls. Hopefully making it a good non-lethal or control option. Piercing damage is halved for force, and doubled for soak rolls. Slashing is just even all around. Energy damages don't cause force except Sonic explosive. Sonic is either tonal or explosive, both are still sonic damage and resisted by sonic resistance. Both are also very loud, having a DC to hear of -100*dmg DC to hear (thus 10 damage has a 0 DC to hear at 10000' away and a DC 10 to hear at 20000' feat, meaning that an outside sonic spell of 10 damage can be heard by ordinary people nearly 4 miles away [This might seem excessive, but most of that distance is not ear-shatteringly loud. As a kid, my mother and I heard the explosion of a power plant nearly 30 miles away from inside the house.]). Sonic never causes specific location damage without extreme circumstances except for the ears. Any injury result that isn't ability damage or blindness/deafness, is con damage instead.
Fire is actually just heat. It doesn't really penetrate armor as a burst, though it can still ignite flammables. However, most magical defenses, like mage armor and shield, do not block it. Additionally, heat damage reinforces itself over time, so DoT damage, or repeated damage every round actually adds the number of rounds of being hit by fire/heat damage to the damage dealt that round. (environmental source goes by how often damage is taken rather than by rounds). Magic can sometimes cause a bit of a momentary reddish glow, hence the naming conventions. Cold works like heat, but it also slows the target, and deals 1 dexterity damage every time period. Electricity deals half the normal damage, and it can only be a line or touch/ranged touch attack. Both ends of the line must be within line of effect of the caster. Electric damage requires a fort save against being stunned, and has +10 to reflex save DC to avoid being hit by it (in the case of AoE). Electricity can have other AoE area shapes at a +5 to cast, but in those cases, it randomly selects spaces in that area to strike (character's in the space have 50% to be hit unless wielding a metal weapon in which they are certainly hit), and isn't controllable by the caster, and the effect's damage is evenly divided among all the things it hit, roll a d6 for every space in the area, 6s get hit. Metal weapons attracting electricity damages the wielder, but most heavy armor doesn't, as the under armor layers insulate the target and the electricity follows the armor to ground. Acid/chemical damage is always DoT. If the effect would normally not be dot, the target takes one damage every round for each die of damage plus static bonuses to damage, the dice of damage rolling how many rounds that recurring damage lasts. Acid is never magical, as any magical effects simply create non-magical acid. Anti-magic can still prevent the magic from creating the acid. Magic force damage, such as from magic missile, by default acts like bludgeoning damage except counts as magic/spell/etc for bypassing resistances, but also never bypasses force effects providing protection. Negative and positive energy are ethereal damages, and are unaffected by non-magical protections.
Magic:
Casting magic requires a spellcraft check to cast a spell. The DC is 5 + 5*spell level. This means that a caster capable of casting 7th level spells is a world renowned caster in the material plane. Any medieval nation is lucky to have a single one, and casters that can cast 5th level spells are basically grandmasters. Slots
This also means that if a caster is out of slots, they can still spend HP to cast magic. Slots are basically mental magic items. A caster can spend 4 hours of meditation to refresh all their slots, or they can go into a special sleeping trance to refresh slots and gain all the benefits of sleep. This sleeping trance state leaves the caster unaware of the outside world except for the most obvious disturbances, like shouts or being vigorously shaken/injured, and while in this state, they are semi-conscious in a dream-like world of their own mind, where the occasional dream-like thing will happen around them, but not really interfere with what they do, and most religious casters take the things seen as signs of some sort, or echoes of the day's events. In either case, if they are interrupted, they must start over from the beginning. Casting
Spells have Basic Aspects {Range, Duration} and Advanced Aspects {number of targets, size of target area, damage dice, individual effects based on CL, number of uses (i.e. chill touch having multiple touches, etc}. The Basic Aspects, {range} and {duration}, cost 1 HP to increase the CL by the Caster's Power, up to a maximum CL equal to Power squared (so a power 3 caster can increase the CL for range up to 3*3=9 by spending 3 HP, and 3 more HP to increase Duration by the same amount). Basic Aspects are increased this way independently, thus HP spent to increase one does not increase the other. This does not increase the DC to cast the spell. Obviously, if range or duration do not increase by CL, then that aspect can't be improved this way. The Advanced Aspects (which includes any part of the spell effect that increases with CL), are initially set to CL 1 at the base cost of the spell. Increase the spell's cost by 2*SL for each additional CL, with a maximum CL equal to Power. Each Aspect is improved independently, in a sensible way. An exception: bursts, such as fireball, have an affected area based on the damage. Within 5' of the origin, full damage is dealt, then subtract one of the damage die, and that amount of damage is dealt to targets an additional 5' out from the origin. This repeats extending the affected area at one less damage die each 5' until no more damage dice remain. If the area is constrained, such as casting a fireball in a hallway, count the 5' cubes in each range segment (I.E. eight 5' cubes within 5' radius, 32 within 10' radius, etc) That number of spaces will be filled with the spell's effect, closest spaces get highest damage, until all the spaces are spent. If there are no available spaces left, but you have more spaces to place with damage, deal double damage to the walls/doors/etc preventing the burst from continuing outward. If that opens up a way for more accessible spaces, starting filling in from there, otherwise, start overlapping spaces starting with those closest to the origin. The basic metamagics,
The metamagic feats
Bubbles
Occasional Mechanics: Not all mechanics are intended to be used all the time. Some mechanics will be ignored by default, even if they move theoretically apply, until the story would be benefited by their inclusion for an arc. For example, a long chase would call for the consideration of how heavier armor and encumbrance would be more exhausting. I generally create rules for these things like they are world rules that always apply, but then only use them at appropriate points in the game. It is a notable consideration if you plan on taking a long trip for which wilderness survival might be an important factor, partake in a long chase, or other such cases. In all cases, the rules are applied equally to both players and NPCs when they apply. (The exception being morale, for which players are unaffected by morale except by magic effects).
Many folks have particular campaign ideas they want run, and some are difficult to find a GM for. Well, here is your chance to get it run. Note: If you want a published AP it will need to be provided. The system I'm using is modified 3.5/pf1. It is also going a different direction from 5e/pf2 style play, instead focusing on a more naturalistic combat-as-war OSR style of play without so many confusing rules. The rules here are meant as support for the gameplay, but not as the game itself. I would prefer to run it as voicechat around midnight in the US, but I'm willing to do PBP if no one is willing to do VC. Anybody interested?
Like the title, what kind of things do you like to see in a rpg that is streamed? I'm not ready to start something yet, but I'd like to someday. I'm still figuring out how streaming works, like I need to find out how to make twitch post the videos to youtube, but I'm starting to suspect that requires the full computer version instead of the mobile app. Thus, as I bring parts together, I want to keep in mind the most appealing aspects, at least those within my means of achievability.
I am putting together a beta draft of new system based on the ogl but heavily modified. One of the aspects I change is that raw numerical power is separate from versatility, and advancement is altered so you can gain lots of levels while remaining in the desired power tier which spans only 4 to 5 levels in 3.5/pf1. It also allows starting at higher power tiers while also starting with novice skills and experience, so you might have a game with superhero/demigod levels of power (like levels 15-20 in 3.x/pf1) but as novice characters who have not yet learned how to use that power very well. Basically, characters can level and gain skills and feats, but power is gained separately which dictates things like caster level, base save bonuses, etc. I also made attacks and spellcasting skill based actions. One competing pair of mechanics I came up with however, is classes. Of which I'm curious which of the following ideas is more appealing, and other thoughts on them good or bad. A) Classes are feat trees. Personally, I hate being forced into classes, though they can be useful for quickly building npcs. Thus this idea for including the thematic elements and abilities of classes in a more free-form fashion. You get feat trees and when you get feats you can select from the feats trees. You might have one tree that has the evasion and uncanny dodge type abilities, one that does the rage type stuff, one for traps, one for stealth, etc. An additional advantage here is that you can mix and match these elements, so you might have a sneaky caster with wilderness abilities that doesn't do traps and stuff but rather acts as a scout. B) Power levels. The idea herem is that each increase in power comes with taking a level in a class, but between those points is taking unclassed levels where skills and feats are gained. This still has classes, mostly as they are, but still leaves a lot of growth between gaining class levels. *Note, I've seen arguments against feat trees. Almost every one boils down to the feat trees having feat taxes. I hate the idea of feat taxes. To me, a good feat tree, is when a feat gives you something and following feats build on that something.
I've created my own rpg system, or more like a very heavy modification of d20. Finding test players is challenging, as in I barely get interest, almost never get to try it out much less get feedback on making it better. So I ask, what kind of incentives can I provide players that they'll accept testing a system, or even just having deep discussions about it?
I've seen some interest for this AP, and I need test players, so it seems like a win-win to run the AP in my system. I can run this as a vc game on discord, but three catches, 1) I don't have money to buy the ap, so I'd need the group to pitch in for it. 2) I am looking to use my own mechanics, 3.5/pf1 gone in a different direction than pf2/5e. I want to test play it and this AP has the kind of downtime that would work well with reviewing and adjusting mechanics between segments without disrupting the narrative. 3) Scheduling is limited, right now that means weeknights starting around 23:00 central time in the USA. (of course, while I'm offering what I'll do for free, if I got paid at least as much as much as I get from delivering uber [about $17-19/hour], then I'd be happy to run games instead of drive, which opens the scheduling possibilities dramatically. I'd also be willing to run whatever system the players want if I get paid. I'd be surprised if anyone would go for that though, but I figured I should at least give the option. Can't get a yes if one doesn't ask.) Optional, I have a uniquely different setting that this AP would fit well with, if anyone is interested in exploring that. Details:
This is a bit of the intro to my system intended to describe how my intent for the way this system is intended to be played is different from other systems such as 5e and pf2, and thus why it's design sticks to simulationism.
Does it make sense? Does it give a good idea impression of a way of playing in which the rules are not intended to be strictly adhered to and yet serve a useful purpose other than telling people what they can do next?
I'm planning on starting a game in a couple weeks if I can get enough players. Premise: The players are "ordinary" kobolds (lvl 1 with non-elite stats, no special gear), with a company of kobolds to lead. Certain challenges come along that must be defeated creatively because they are too powerful to defeat head on. There is a bit story here that will eventually lead to the PCs leading a group of kobolds into dungeons to recover things. This is the birth of a more capable kobold empire in a homebrew setting. Rules: Heavily modified 3.5/pf1.
Seems like a massive shift, but the underlying foundation is basically the same and thus is generally still directly compatible with 3.5/pf1 resources. Style: A grounded style. The rules are representative of the world, but not only are players not limited to mechanical solutions, if you limit yourself to the mechanics, you'll probably fail. Use the environment, and non-mechanical solutions. The point of changing the mechanics is not balance or anything, but rather, to A) be more representative of the fictional world, and B) to make it easier to take a player's desired action that doesn't have an explicit rule/mechanic and to resolve it quickly, easily, and consistently, on the fly as needed without it being pure fiat. The rules are about making play more consistent and communicating about things in shorthand, and not about defining "how to play." This is particularly important for this game, since the whole challenge is to face mechanically superior problems, and to overcome them despite inferior stats. You are kobolds, you don't win by being more powerful, because you're not, and rarely will be. Your only hope of being the more powerful creature is in facing things like goblins. You have leadership over some kobolds, so use them. Play Method: Discord voice chat live game. Don't know much of roll20, but if it can be done for free, I might be convinced to use it if enough players want that instead. Playtime: Starts 23:00 on a weeknight according to central mountain time (middle of the US). The exact night can be chosen by the player consensus, mon through thur nights. ======
This is still 2-3 weeks out from starting. Feedback is always welcome.
I'm looking to run the first 3 books of Hell's Rebels (I don't have the last 3 books, but if I can afford to aquire them before we get there I'll happily keep going). However, I'd really like to run this "live" over discord on either saturday or sunday late night central mountain time (starting no earlier than 19:00), but if there aren't enough players up for that, then I'll run it here as pbp, though at a slow pace, about 3-5 posts a week, though obviously weekends are better for me than weekdays. I'll likely be able able to answer questions and such more often than that but I want to avoid making rushed posts to advance the game, especially given how chaotic and unpredictable my weekday schedule is, so I only want to post to advance gameplay when I can sit and think about it rather than tossing it together in a hurry. An important note, I'm an "old school/classic" style GM (misnomers really, but what else do I call it?), to me rules are a language to more easily communicate details and add some chance/fate, but are not absolute laws on how to play that must be always perfectly applied (I highly suggest reading Alexandrian's article on Calibrating Your Expectations), for example, answering the question "how strong are you" is a lot easier when when you can just reference a chart instead of having a discussion, but naturally such a chart would look very much like a mechanic. Another example is applying an Unstable Platform penalty for a fight to make it feel different from other fights but not worry about using the penalty every single time it might be applicable. Some say the rules must be perfectly applied so they know what to expect, to which my response is to judge by the narrative milieu instead of abstract mechanics. We don't use mathmatical models in the real world and we get by fine, same can be true of the game world. That said, the rules do fine for general case, it is mostly the niche cases and creative concepts that might require bending/breaking the rules and I'm not afraid of doing so in such cases. I'll be aiming for naturalistic balance rather than gamist balance and will judge according to what makes sense in the narrative milieu rather than treating this like an advanced version of chess. I.E. you will never encounter a Poison Dart trap DC 23, but instead you'll find a trip wire, or pressure plate, etc. How you try to get past it determines what skill you'll need, and if you're clever enough, you might avoid needing a check at all. Also, while I'm not out to kill players, I'm not out to prevent death either. It should be dangerous, and if you are not using good tactics, you will die. I want to avoid death being so common that players are not invested in their characters, yet also to avoid players feeling like they can take survival for granted or even to feel like death is avoidable with only minor thought, rather I want survival to the end to feel like a goal that needs to be worked for. Hirelings are not a bad idea, if you can find some. And the 15 minute workday, well, not when enemies are around, as the world does not wait for you. If you attack a "dungeon," expect to clear it out or retreat before you get to have a long rest, and if you retreat, expect the inhabitants to be better prepared for your next attempt (if they bother to hang around). It should be noted that most creatures of the material plane will not fight to the death, but a few will. They will also use tactics and strategy. I'm a big fan of Tucker's Kobolds, so don't expect even the low cr guys to just be pushovers, in general at least. I also don't do the whole "encounters should be lvl appropriate" thing. Not sure why everyone thinks things "should" be like that, but most creatures in the world are low level and those few high level creatures can turn up at any time. For non-story encounters, I roll dice for encounter strength similar to ORE, with a curve favoring low level guys but more variable for total difficulty. You can get unlucky in either ememy CR or total encounter CR, so being careful is advised. Worried about XP? Don't be, you'll get XP/advancement based on accomplishmemt of goals/tasks, so just randomly killing things is not the most efficient way to earn XP. Generally I'll hand out XP based on how difficult things are for you, so minmaxing can actually work against you in regard to advancement. If you're still reading, then let's get to the rules modifications. They are somewhat hefty but not as different in gameplay as they might at first seem. 1 dice. 3D6 and player rolls.:
I'll be using 3d6 rolls, but while take 10 works like normal for 3d6, the take take 16/18 options are replaced. Take 12, spend 10 times as long and twice the resources to treat 2d6s as max and roll only the remaining 1d6. Take 20, spend 100 times as long and 5 times the resources to add 20 instead of rolling. In some cases, the take 12 is the expected norm while a straight roll is for when rushing, such as picking a lock is much easier when being careful and slow but being fast is less reliable and more variable. There is also Take 5, aka Passive. Mostly used for stealth or search, but this basically means that one is so good that they are basically automatically using the skill even when not trying to. For example, someone who is sneaky tends to be more quiet even when walking normally, even accidently scaring people by normally walking up to them unnoticed, you know the type, those folks who always seem to be behind you without you noticing. It doesn't come up often, but can be funny or interesting when it does. I'll sometimes use advantage/disadvantage for circumstance modifiers and a few select effects like the Bless/Bane spells and any morale modifiers. Advantage works like expected, you add extra dice and then discard the same number of highest/lowest rolling dice as were added. Additionally, for discord I'll use the Players roll all the dice variant rule, but... If this ends up as pbp that'll be too slow with all the asking for rolls, so to speed things up in that case, it'll be active rolls all the dice vs static reaction, which basically means that if you do it then you roll, if done to you, they roll. I.E. spell DC is rolled against static save, etc. This way, both player and gm need only worry about rolls for things they choose to do and thus never need to ask for or wait for someone else to roll in reaction.
2 levels Advancing levels:
There are numbers tied to class or character level. These are based on other things now, allowing many more levels of versatility to be gained without growing into superhuman levels of power so quickly (in the fashion referred to in the Alexandrian's article Calibrating Your Expectations. Thus while lvl 5 is normally an Einstein at the peak of real world human capability, now it can be set to lvl 10, 20, or even 100). Mainly this will be based on a new stat called Power, though many things will also be based on ability scores or turned into skills. Power (I still call it Tier sometimes from other rules I work on) basically represent two things, a character's agency in the world, and raw numerical power (i.e. someone with no training nor experience yet can release blasts of fire to melt titanium or to cover whole buildings, is someone with low level but high power). Power is improved via narrative rp. It requires character growth in general but other things can improve power as well, both temporarily and inherently. ---
There is an attack skill for spells, which covers hitting a target/location with any aimed spell. ---
AC is the ref save plus the lesser of the armor skill rank or the armor's armor bonus and is by general type (plate, scale, chain, magic force [spells and items with armor bonuses], etc. Like attack, proficiency determines class skills). Dodge is your touch ac skill, but armor check penalties apply to the dodge skill, as actively avoiding a touch is different from parrying with armor, and a focus on wearing armor vs dodging is a choice impacting what equipment to wear. The reflex save by itself is used for unexpected attacks (flat-footed or would normally be denied dex bonus), while knowing of an attack allows an improvement upon that. Since these defense skills build on saves, they don't add ability modifiers again since those are already added. Attacking someone who literally can't move/react, such as for coup-de-grace, paralyzed, etc, the AC is 10+size+ half the armor bonus.
Heavy armor does not reduce base speed (it doesn't in real life and now it is no longer needed as a balancing factor). When using total defense, you may choose to brace for impact and use your fort save instead of ref save for defense (basically not even bothering to avoid the blow and just trying to withstand it instead.). This also allows you to reduce dmg more. ---
---
---
Class skills do not get the +3 bonus. Skill ranks have a growing cost, each rank costs itself in skill points (i.e. improving a skill from 2 ranks to 3 ranks costs 3 skill points. Skill ranks earned every lvl is by class as normal plus power. (This is because even at 20 max skill ranks, 100 levels will give you hundreds of excess skill points at a 1 to 1 cost, a decidely bad thing, so costing more slows it down such that power better controls how many high ranked skills one can get) All classes that normally get fewer than 6 skill points per lvl now get get 6 (under the presumption that those extra skill points used to go towards attack and magic skills in the background, but now are now explicit. Because nowyou have to actually buy thosr skills instead of getting them free.) ---
3 Health Wounds-Vitality except...:
Normal HP works like Vitality, representing both non-specific physical issues, such as bruises, scratches, bloodloss, exhaustion, etc, and non-physical aspects like focus, determination and morale. You have a lot more hp than before, you can lose a number of HP equal to your con score before hitting a Benchmark. You can hit a number of Benchmarks equal to your con score (effectively giving you your con-score-squared in HP), but each Benchmark passed requires a fort save (DC 10+number of benchmarks passed) in order to remain conscious. You get a +4 to this save if you take action knowing it will hurt (basically, when your character can mentally brace for it). ---
The Wounds threshold is set by Power, Con, DR, and Armor bonus (this is why soldiers in full plate get battered to death rather than killed by greivous wounds). When taking Total Defense and choosing to brace for impact, you also add Str to the Wounds Threshold. Any DR that applies to the attack adds to the Threshold as well as any armor and natural armor bonuses that apply to the attack (a touch spell for example doesn't get the armor bonus against it for the attack and therefore not the dmg either). Armor and natural armor do indeed apply against burst AOE attacks (due to exposing less of the wearer). Properly worn armor applies to electricity attacks. When dmg exceeds the Wounds Threshold, or you get hit with a critical hit, or when an attack hits AC+10, you get a wound. Roll a d20 and subtract the weapon's critical multiplier and the number of precision dice if any were rolled (reduced size precision dice reduce the bonus here proportionally. I.E. d4s would add only 2/3s the number of dice). Getting a roll of 1 or less is death. Getting less than 5 is 3 points of bleed per round and 3 con dmg. Getting less than 10 is 2 con dmg and 2 bleed per round. Getting less than 15 is 1 con dmg and 1 bleed per round. Bleed from multiple wounds stack. Getting 15 or above will merely have 1 bleed per round. Bleed X means losing X HP at the end of every round. Bleed stacks, so Bleed 3 + Bleed 2 = Bleed 5. But remember each wound individually along with it's bleed number. These are healed per wound, not by simply reducing numbers. Cure spells heal HP, OR stop bleed effects if used with a successful heal check DC 10+thrice the bleed value of the targeted wound, but do not fix wounds themselves (leaving any other effects of the wound still in effect). Wounds must be healed via the Heal skill or with restoration-like magic. If an effect can heal your choice of ability dmg (i.e. as in not specific to just str, or just mental abilities), then the effect can instead heal one wound per point of ability score damage that would be healed. Potions must be specifically brewed for this, it can't be chosen at time of drinking. 4 magic Magic potential:
Magic is normally a sure thing balanced by limited use. I'm changing that to be less certain, weaker, but usable more often. Casting magic requires a skill check (DC 5+5 per SL), with a skill for each spell known (prepping a spell that has been added to spellbook but has no ranks can be done, you just won't have any bonus to casting it). This check is also used for the quality of the spell (such as for how good your illusion looks) and the spell's save DC. [ooc]Trick; subtract DC from roll, 0 or above is success and result is the direct magnitude of success/failure. Magnitude of success plus 10 plus Power is spell DC. ---
---
---
Whenever casting a spell using a slot, you'll roll a die, if it rolls a 1 then that slot is disrupted and can't be cast again until it is prepared again, or after 4 hours per SL in the case of spontaneous casters. Areas with little magic may recharge slower or not all, while areas with plenty (such as a ley line) can recharge faster. Con is used for determining extra slell slots. ---
---
Spell effects always use the base cl as mentioned above. Burst effects are 5' at highest CL and from there, each doubling of range reduces the CL by 1 until CL is less than 1. The only way to improve the radius of a burst is to improve it's CL. I.E. a CL 5 fireball is 5d6 dmg out to 5', 4d6 dmg out to 10', 3d6 dmg out to 15', 2d6 out to 20', and 1d6 out to 25'. Just roll the full number of dice once, and ignore one die per 5', in order. Metamagic feats can be learned, they increase the DC by 5 per SL of modification. Except for metamagic that skip componants (such still spell) which instead halve the DC cost listed above for skipping that componant (i.e. Still spell adds +2 DC instead of +4). ---
Most of these spell effects are ended when the conduit is severed, but more permanant ones, like the link between mage and familiar, remains but requires the conduit to be re-established after being severed. This re-establishing of the conduit can be done by touch or connecting via other spells that form similar links. ---
5 Clarifications Clarifications: These are not really rules alterations, but my take on certain rules that is different from the stereotypes. ---
This is about preparedness and expectation. If you see people up ahead and are suspicious they might be bandits and feady yourselves for combat even though you plan on not attacking first, then that choice is the first round of combat, even though we won't be counting rounds until/unless combat actually breaks out. The rules around surprise rounds and start of combat apply only when you are not expecting combat when combat starts. Thus, most of the time, you'll be "in combat" plenty ahead of the first actual attack roll. This is particularly important to note in dealing with people. Being aware of a merchant, but not realizing that he is actually an assassin means you are not "aware" of him as a combatant even though you are aware of his presence. ---
Alignment doesn't apply to personal relationships. Good folks are good because they uphold society and people in general as more important than themselves. They value the lives of strangers and sacrifice much for people they don't even know. Evil folks can be regular evil or monstrous. Most tropes of pure evil are actually the monstrous category. Regular evil is simply apathy for society or strangers, someone who simply doesn't care if random people they never see get hurt, but they can still care about personal relationships, and can still have friends and loved ones (usually these will be messed up in some way, but not always) and may even be willing to sacrifice a lot for these personal relationships that they'd never even consider doing for a stranger. Monstrous are the ones who like causing pain, who take pleasure in harming others and commit murder and torture for the fun of it. Monstrous characters almost always deserve to die. Regular Evil may or may not deserve harsh punishment. Lawful is not about law, more like orderly behaviour. OCD behaviour, or someone who is dedicated to routine and doing things in the "proper" way. They make plans and follow them. The violinist who practices proper technique and does scales. Chaotic folks go with the flow and do what seems like a good idea at the time. They don't like plans, and get frustrated when they aren't allowed to just handle something instead of wasting time preparing. The fiddler who learns by ear and practice by just strumming notes till they sound right. If you've seen Mr and Mrs Smith, Mrs Smith is Lawful, Mr Smith is chaotic.
I recently found a solution to the forums being too wide and clipping off the side of the of the screen, but now I see a mostly transparent image in front of everything on the site, though I can click on things (touch really, since I'm on a phone) behind the image. Width Solution (I'll post this on my thread for the width issue)
The Image
The image shows a cliff on the right and a couple characters (the rogue and wizard) climbing a ladder with a sword being held in a hand in the foreground, all in Paizo's visual cartoony style.
I'm curious if it has been figured out why mobile users can't see the whole page. If so, what is the problem? I already figure it's slated to be fixed during the upcoming downtime, if you figured out the problem. I'm curious about the bug itself. I'm also curious why I have to select "Get Desktop version" every single page, though I suspect that is either a browser issue, or stems from how cookies are handled.
First, I want to help make the game work, but that is me challenging myself as a designer. It is a challenge because this game is clearly not something I will ever play after the playtest. Why? Well, that is revealed with my first point of feedback. What is roleplay and what is a roleplaying game?
The term "Roleplaying Game" has been used far outside it's logical and original meaning. The issue I have here, is the rulebook implies that what Pathfinder does is roleplay , the truth of which is beside the point, because the way the book presents the concepts isn't about Pathfinder but is laying a claim to what all rpgs are, and that is the bad part that I feel really needs changed. Paizo has a certain thing they are going for, a certain kind of play. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming that all roleplaying is the same as what Paizo is going for is bad because Paizo is going for a tiny slice of a massive pie, and telling new people out there that the entire pie is is just like Paizo's targeted slice is doing a disservice to the industry. Not to mention establishing expectations that players will hold when looking at other games claiming to be rpgs. In fact, the book actually specifies swords and sorcery adventurers as part of what makes an rpg an rpg, which is something Pathfinder does, but not what an rpg does. Rpgs not only can be any genre, but do not even need to be epic nor heroic. Having a bunch of normal contemporary college students trying to survive being hunted by a homicidal maniac is as valid a concept for an rpg as anything Paizo puts out. I know the book is obviously and rightly focused on what Pathfinder is, but it really should describe itself as a type of rpg with a specific focus on heroic swords and sorcery themes. That would not only be more accurate, but then the writers can either do a better job of describing rpgs in general, or they can leave that to be researched by curious newbies on their own and instead focus on what Pathfinder is, instead of confusing newbies over what an rpg is. What is an rpg? A tangent for the curious.:
The term Roleplaying game has two words. Roleplaying is to play a role, or said another way, is to pretend to be someone else. A game, as the term is generally used, is a fun activity centered around making choices. (hence game theory becoming the study of decision making) Thus, a roleplaying game, is a game all about making choices from the perspective of a portrayed character. This is actually the original style of play, though it didn't take long for the poorly named "new school" players to completely subvert this intention, as evidenced by Gygax complaining about people "playing the rules" instead of playing the actual game. The term "roleplaying game" has expanded in use to the point of being almost pointless, and about as broad in scope as "board game." Almost any game with a character progression system and a story is labeled an rpg these days, though some undefined element seems to come into play, leading to arguments over what does or does not count as an rpg, thus leading to Call of Duty being labeled as "not an rpg" while WTOR "is an rpg" even though both are combat games with set stories that you progress through by succeeding in sessions of combat. Railroading is thus antithetical to the logical meaning of the term, as railroading is denying meaningful choice to the players, yet is perfectly acceptable to the expanded use of the term. Personally, I hold that a true rpg is one that fits really close to the actual term and thus focuses on players having lots of agency and are focused on making choices from the perspective of their characters. I would then consider other games as nominally rpgs when the players create their own characters and get to reflect and show some traits of their characters but are denied significant agency (such as when a pfs scenario dictates that once finished with plot point A, players go to plot point B. Keep in mind, this is about agency not tactics. Choosing what tactics to use is not agency. Political Correctness
Such a section sounds more like a disclaimer to avoid being sued. A valid concern by a company I guess, since it is expensive even when the charges are so ridiculous that a judge overturns them quickly. But really, that stuff needs to be in the fine print at the front. Telling players to not do stuff that is entirely unrelated to the game is not only insulting to anyone who reads it, but also pointless as those inclined to behave in such a way are going to do so regardless of what you write. So don't waste the space on political correctness. Spend on the game itself. Minor wording confusion
That is an odd spot for such a specific. Much better to phrase it as "once enough xp is acquired," that way it doesn't give any false impressions and it won't need changed if you alter xp and leveling. Also, as it is a major change for those familiar with earlier editions, it stands out and draws attention to itself leading one to wonder if it a mistake, which is made worse by the fact that it doesn't go into detail and doesn't even mention where one can confirm whether xp changed or if it was just incorrect. Formatting discussion
Alignment
Perception
Further, i can speak from personal experience, that who notices whom first does not always react first. One guy who crashed into me admits that he saw me but froze up, and didn't even think, he simply watched it all happen. Meanwhile, I noticed him much later, but reacted quickly and turned things from a flat crash to a side scrape. Noticing first does not equal acting first. Therefore, I find it an odd default for initiative. I do like how you make a distinction between precise and imprecise senses. I totally thought I had a lock on that concept. :p
I'm running an android 7.0 samsung galaxy j3 with firefox browser. The site now loads with the right edge cut off (it goes off screen). It looks fine if I load the desktop version.
I'll be running a playtest of PF2. Work has limited my original plans so the only table I'll run will be live over Discord. I'm not planning on using other tabletop simulator programs. Group gets to vote whether to play my Test of the Starstone or Hell's Rebels (I have only the first three books, but I'd be surprised if it lasted that long). I'm not adverse to running a different AP or module if someone buys it, and importantly, the group wants to. I do want to note that I am non-standard in gming style. This is not a minitures combat game. This is a player agency game that sometimes just happens to include combat. There is no need to cover all roles, nor focus on combat only stats. Therefore, I want characters that aren't described as race/class combos. Additionally, you can expect the world to be more responsive to you (no shagging in the king's throneroom unless you want the royal guard to toss you in jail), and I will not be leading you by the nose. Any questions can be asked here.
There are many who see "rules" and immediately think of rules like they see in a board game or legal laws, rules set forth by authority figures, and in rare cases, laws of physics sort of rules of the universe. In all these cases rules are a strict thing intended to be followed exactly, and if an alteration is needed, the rule itself should be altered to accommodate. There is a thing called "selective enforcement" however, in which there are rules that are expected to have a blind eye turned towards the activity unless a problem occurs, or in other cases is supposed to be followed unless "common sense" would dictate breaking the rules. I.E. such as speeding when you are trying to get a person to the hospital in time to save their life. The law doesn't explicitly say you are allowed, but rather expects police and judges to utilize good judgement and simply not enforce the speed limits in such a case. Then we get RPGs. RPGs have rules, and while it can be fun to play a game treating the rules like a board game, or as I call 4e, a miniatures combat game with story, there is also a way of playing in which the rules are expected to have selective enforcement or even no enforcement at all. Most of the time, players tell me that if I don't want to follow the rules of a game like D20, that I should go play freeform. Problem is, I see value in D20's rules for something other than being "rules." To describe this other value to be found, I'll lead you there via a thought experiment, so perhaps it makes better sense why I like to have D20-ish rules without the enforcement expected of "rules." To start, imagine playing freeform. Now, as players make choices in-game, players need more information than an author would give in a story or movie. I.E. we do not know the full list of spells known by Harry Potter, we only know which ones he uses. His rationale for using those particular spells is hidden from us as it is not needed for us to enjoy the story. But, as players who make decisions, as we are the ones who are choosing what spells to use or what strategies to utilize, we need far more information than is given in a simple story. More importantly, that information needs more accuracy. A book can tell us a character is "very strong," and each reader will have different ideas about what that means. But when a players describes themselves as "very strong," we need to know whether they mean The Hulk kind of strong, Body builder strong, or simply above average soldier kind of strong. The easiest way to achieve this is to put together a table of terms, each defining how strong a character is when described with that term, whether it be a word or a number. In this way, every player can look at the table and use those terms so everyone is on the same page of understanding how strong everyone is. Such a table can also include information telling how common or rare it is to find individuals of a particular level of strength, which tells us a fair bit of the world milieu. Do this with a number of traits and you get what looks like a book of rules, but really is just a language to make communication about the world and characters easier, more accurate, and most importantly, concise. As this is a game, we want to talk and understand in a way that the talking is unnoticed (much like talking in our natively language goes unnoticed. We don't think about the language we are using, we think only about what we are trying to communicate and the language handles itself without much thought). Thus we have stats, and character sheets, and a reference book. Then we also find that players are getting irritated as the GM seems rather biased, the GM had player C fail the last three times C tried anything. The GM will almost always seem biased, no matter how unbiased they actually are. The solution here is to outsource the success and failure decision to something other than a person, at least for cases when there is disagreement over what the result should be or when the game would benefit from it. But simply flipping a coin feels arbitrary and disconnected from the world. Why should the barbarian have the same chance of pummeling the orc as the fumbling healer? It really is beneficial, making the choice feel connected to the world when your not-human decision maker accounts for character capability and task difficulty. And guess what, we already have stats, so just use those as your measure of character ability by making the terms apply to the decision making system. Then simply include someway for task difficulty to also apply and viola, you have a full fledged RPG, with zero expectation of rules being something that must be absolutely followed like they would be in Chess or some other board game. In fact, from this point of view, things should only apply or be used when it enhances the game. For example, taking penalties for fighting on a boat should only apply when such a fight is uncommon, when those penalties are a part of what makes that fight stand out from the others. In a campaign where nearly every fight is on a boat, those penalties should simply be ignored as they are not adding anything at that point. It also makes sense at this to simply use whatever rules represent the narrative milieu best, regardless of what those rules were created for, or even to make new rules on the spot for handling something even if those rules never get used again (otherwise known as a GM ruling). Hopefully this helps some folks understand a radically different way of using the same mechanics. Perhaps when playing this way, we should call the rules something else, perhaps descriptive guidelines? Using mechanics in this way is not playing rules, but using them as a language to communicate about the world and the characters.
Playstyles is a far more complex subject than "Intrigue vs Combat," which is basically just the tip of the visible portion of the iceberg that is playstyles. So why is this important? Because of communication among players, and so GMs can more readily tailor their games to the players they have. To paraphrase something Shamus Young said "There is a reason we don't use the word 'mechanic' to mean anybody who works on automobiles, HVAC, aerospace, civil engineering, and the myriad of other 'similar' jobs. If you ask for a mechanic, do you need your car fixed, or your air conditioner?" If everyone understood the differences of playstyles and had good terminology for it, we could more easily find groups of a particular style we enjoy, and even when we couldn't we could still agree on a particular style for a game and thus enjoy it more with less friction among players. Part of the problem though, is that players in general do not simply use one phrase "Role-Playing Game" to mean a wide swath of game types, but that most players think of that wide swath of game types as being a small and narrow selection of games. Many of the differences between types are subtle and not superficial, making them hard to understand without the right experience, much like how people think of combat sports as being anything related to actual combat, when the truth is, a warrior that has fought real battles will see a grand canyon of difference in something an inexperienced person would say looks the same. GMs, the serious ones anyway, should understand these differences so they can see what the different players in their group are and can adjust the game to best suit the mix of styles their players are, or even select players to get a group of similar styles, both of which would vastly improve the play experience of all involved. ___ Now I see there being three axi of aspects that affect playstyle, basically giving us a cube of a playstyle spectrum that everyone is in somewhere. The three axi are meta vs world, narrative vs events, serious vs social. The meta vs world axis about what viewpoint you have in thinking about the game. Meta is thinking about the game from "outside" the game. For example, someone who considers a course of action because it might build up character growth (in a literary sense) is thinking from a viewpoint outside their character. They are basically thinking as an entity outside the narrative looking in. The opposite end of this is someone who thinks from the viewpoint of being in the world, what is the character seeing and thinking, and acting on that regardless of any external factors. Narrative vs events is about focusing on narrative aspects, like character growth and the narrative milieu, or on events like swinging on a chandelier and saying cheesy one-liners. Serious vs Social is a simple one. Some people get into their games, and while fun, they want to take it seriously. Pro gamers, who go to world tournaments and such, enjoy what they are doing but are still being serious about it in a way that more casual players never will be. Going even further away from serious are the players who are not even invested in the game at all, but are there just for the social experience of doing something with their friends regardless of what that something is. For these players, the game could be tiddlywinks and that would be fine. This gives us roughly six extremes, the "pure roleplayer," the Gamer, the Author, the Seeker, and the Socialite. The Author (meta * narrative) is a player who wants to take part in crafting the story. They want to do things in such a way they would be enjoyable to read after the fact. They want to not only control a character but to fill in details about the world, craft wondrously written conversation with NPCs and other players, and take part in crafting the outcomes and events so their character can be seen going through character growth and things that make a good story. The Seeker (world * events) is a player all about getting the emotional highs from doing cool, cheesy, or cliched jokes. They would rather swing on a chandelier because it is cool, than to do the tactically smart but less cool option. They are about the Thrills and Spills (an awesome video of this title exists btw, though equestrian in nature) of the game. The Gamer (Meta * Events) is a player that plays the game like a board game. That is not to say they discount the story, but when there is an obstacle to be overcome, they like handling it in a mechanical way. They like having and using system mastery. Such players are the ones who always want game balance, because a lack of game balance makes system mastery less interesting and feel more like cheating rather than feeling like a master tactician. These players enjoy the part of play where they can show how mechanically awesome their characters are. It is how they get to feel good about playing. These players are also the ones most likely to become angry, depressed, or sad about "failing" on rolls, and GMs of this style are the least likely to utilize "Always fail forward" techniques to keep the story momentum regardless of rolls, because to them, failing a roll is supposed to be a failure, not a success with complication. The "Pure Roleplayer" (world * narrative) is the player who wants to feel like they actually are their characters. Such players don't want any more control over the story or world than their characters possess. They don't want to know things their characters don't. These players want to explore the world and story as if they themselves were the protagonists rather than simply players playing a game. This style is both the hardest and yet easiest style because it is the most basic form of play every kid knows first, but is also so completely at odds with every other structured game in existence. I have noticed that many folks who start out "roleplaying" with either a group of Gamers or of "Pure Roleplayers" tend to become stuck the most in their way of playing and have the most difficulties with each other. Gamer style and "pure roleplayer" style are complete opposites even when using the exact same rules, mostly because they are looking at very different things in their games. The Gamers tend to develop their strategies by looking at the rules and mechanics, while "pure roleplayers" look at the narrative world instead, and each of those will result in different possibilities and limitations. A Gamer tends to see the rules as absolute and that the world should reflect the rules, while the "pure roleplayer" sees the narrative as absolute and that the rules should bend or even break to reflect the narrative milieu. ___ The troubles here come from everybody having a "box." You know the one, the box everybody is told to think outside of. This box is made of a person's experiences and what they focus on. So a player who is used to, and experienced in, board games (or video games which are the same thing in terms of this discussion) will encounter an RPG for the first time and build their understanding of it in terms they are familiar with, which means seeing the game like a board game. However, kids who are still playing pretend when introduced to RPGs will think in terms of playing pretend and that means they will develop strategies built in a completely different way than a board gamer precisely because they lack any experience with board games. For each side, this builds their box. It sets the establishment of how they think, understand, and strategize in the game. When one player flips the table to make cover, the others boggle at having not thought of it themselves, but the entire reason they didn't think of it was because they have their box built around seeing the game as a board game. They can do the things one can do in a board game, which is move around and activate abilities listed on their sheet. The player who flipped the table, thinks of flipping the table precisely because their character sheet and rules are purely ancillary to how they develop strategies. They think like they are playing pretend, which means they thinks in terms of real world objects and rooms and physics, and the rules are just a language to help discuss such things. I've found that in teaching new players, showing them both sides of this, Gamer and "pure roleplayer" opens them up to enjoying many different ways to play and keeps them from getting locked into a small box built on one style of thinking about the game.
So I advocate teaching different styles as early as possible, just like you don't show people only anime movies you show them anime, animated, and live action, the same should apply to RPGs, we should show the different styles and build terminology allowing us to discuss and communicate about the different styles. It would allow us to broaden our experiences in playing and allow us to avoid a lot of negativity stemming from being mind-boggled at the inexplicable seemingly stupid weirdness of others.
I am going to run a playtest game. If I can find the players, I want to run it on discord voice chat on saturdays 20:00-05:00 central time of the US. Thus, I'd like to run voice chat before then to figure out how to work it, overcome any unforseen issues in the format, etc. Even if I don't get the voice chat players, I still want to get a playtest group together beforehand, so the group can iron out the wrinkles and learn how I intend to run the the game. My goal for the playtest is to test the system's flexibility by running a group in the "play the story" playstyle. The game will be Test of the Starstone, hence "playing the story" is vital to the game, not only because that will really test the flexibility, but because it is a campaign that expects the players to lose (winning is possible, just not likely), not to mention that passing the test will not depend on surpassing mechanical challanges. This makes getting the right group together for it very important. It is also why I want to run it in voice chat, since I'm much better running live games than pbp. I'll be taking on 9 people cause I expect to lose some, but even if I don't, it won't be beyond my capacity. So any questions? Any interest?
I use almost exclusively my mobile android phone for reading, but paizo pdfs always have image problems (and only paizo. Only once did I have a non-paizo pdf give me a problem). Some images, not all, just a few, usually one or two per page, turn black and get placed on top of the text. Normally this is a minor issue, because it is usually artwork, but a recent one I downloaded I can't read at all because the images that turned black were all the page background images. For reference, I use Pocketbook on android (previously 4.1, 4.4,) 7. So, what I wanted tk know was if you, the tech folks or a paizo somebody, test the pdfs for viewing on android phones, and if so, do you use a free reader program, if so, which one?
|
