I am making this thread to put up some of my house rules and get occasionally feedback, or if I'm lucky, a few people who use them. :)
I'm going to start things off with a simple one for haggling.
HAGGLING AND VARIABLE PRICES
The idea is that most things are not purchased at the exact set prices in the book, rather, the costs in the book are a base cost which gets modified by a 3d6 roll.
When someone buys something, they roll 3d6 (this can be once per purchase) and take the result as a multiplier (generally this happens during slower gameplay, and with everyone having a smartphone calculator, easy enough without much slowdown) of the base cost in increments of 10%, thus a result of 12 is 120%. This gives a range of 30% - 180%.
This is nice as it helps make it feel like different shops and places have fluctuating prices and active markets.
---
Additionally, an opposed skill check (whether you add a Haggle skill, use various other skills, or even use skill challenges) can be rolled between buyer and seller. Success means rolling an additional d6 and choosing which 3 affect the price. I.E. if Bob is buying 3 potions for a base cost of 150 gp, he rolls and wins the haggle check, so he rolls 4d6 for 2,2,4,5, so he drops the 5 and is able to buy the potions for 80% of base price, 120gp.
---
If you want to allow truly exceptional skill at haggling, then you can say that an extra d6 is rolled for every extra 5 points by which one wins the check. The winner of the haggle check always chooses which 3 dice to keep.
How often can people make such checks, and are they correlated? i.e. can you wait a week to try again to purchase your +1 keen rapier or case of enlarge person potions, and would the new percentage be related to the old one if you did?
Can you say I'll get back to you on that to the average magic item dealer? i.e. if they won the haggle check and the resulting price was 140% of base, could you drag a different negotiator in to try again?
IMO, if I wanted haggling 30% - 180% is way to big of a swing, especially for big budget magic items. That could drop an item below the cost to make the item.
That is where the RP comes in. A different shopkeeper, of course they can try again, but the same shopkeeper will probably remember them and hold.
That said, the whole point is that this becomes the agreed price of the item. The characters know nothing of the base price, so they aren't exactly going be thinking 120% is 20% too high, they won't even know 120%, they just know that this shopkeep sold them three potions for 180gp.
It is a type of metagaming to make choices based on numbers the characters will never know. For example, getting a +1 dmg from using acid flask as a focus. A character wouldn't even notice without a statistical study, except maybe for the cantrip. Players notice primarily because they are seeing behind the curtain by default.
@Valandil
First, bell curve. It centers everything around the center values. 50% of checks are between 8 and 12.
Getting the price down to 50% or less has the same chance as rolling a natural 20. So that is basically a critical success.
Even allowing 4d6 drop one only raises to about 13%, similar to rolling an 8 on a d8, and 75% of such checks would still be above 6.
And honestly, this isn't as bad as you might expect. It is something players could feel good about, making them feel like they totaly swindeled that shopkeep.
Also, If you really the idea of a shopkeeper taking a loss, then make multiple checks for the different items a player buys. It is a real world technique to take a loss on one product to get a sale of something else.
Besides, the reasons behind why an extreme result is extreme is up to you. Maybe the shopkeep has reasons for it, maybe that sword is a bit high profile, or theives have breaking in the last couple days and he wants the temptation gone.
Additionally, the costs of such items comes from the Ironman principle, not narrative reasoning. A low cost one time is balanced by a high cost another time. And if the players come out ahead too much, well they get to feel awesome for doing so while you adjust the amount of treasure found to compensate.
I have never seen the point of haggling. It's just one more roll between the group and something actually interesting happening.
Wealth and equipment are just as important as experience and class features in a game like Pathfinder. Haggling is an interesting aspect of medieval culture, but I cannot see what it adds to gameplay.
Also, I know this isn't a popular stance, but I'm going to take it anyway: there's nothing wrong with metagaming. Or rather, there's no way to avoid metagaming without creating an equally weird and undesirable situation.
First, I partially agree about metagaming. I have studied RPGs like a scientist. There are multiple distinctly different ways to play. Even Gygax understood this, complaining about how most players were not playing the game, instead just playing the rules. He understood the difference, mainly because that difference was to him the entire point of playing.
I find both are enjoyable, though I get a satisfaction from playing the game that simply can never be matched by playing the rules.
This is relevant because in playing the rules, metagaming is fine, and in some cases, totally beneficial.
However, in playing the game, metagaming undercuts the entire point. It detracts from the game. In some cases, the cost is worth it, but it is still a cost to be minimized.
Most of my rules are designed for playing the game rather than playing the rules. Too many folks putting out systems do not understand the distinction and therefore design their systems exclusively around playing the rules (hence pf2, 5e, and especially 4e). My hope is to balance the scales and make better systems for those who play the game.
And for those playing the game, things like haggling initiate the interesting parts, things like haggling are what the interesting parts revolve around.
Time for the next rule module, a couple of ability score generation methods.
GENERATE ABILITY SCORES
This first method is something I came up with as compromise between between those who hate the issue of how rolling scores gets some players with much better stats than other players, yet retains the randomness that inspires creativity and challange and that avoids too much min-maxing.
The idea is to take point buy then for each point, roll a d6 to determine which score that point goes to.
For example, a 15 point build would roll 15d6, the number of d6s that rolled 1 would be the number of points that go to strength, the number of 2s would be the points for dex, etc.
If there are some extra points in a score because there are too many for one score but not enough to buy the next score, just pass those extra points to the next score.
All possible results would therefore be 15 point builds, yet the results are not certain.
Variant: Reserve Points. I like to keep a few points set aside to place as desired, to represent a character's developmental training. Thus, a low strength character might train to overcome that weakness, or a very studious character might enhance their already prodigious intellect.
---
The second method is actually a minor twist to rolling that I usually like to apply on something from Unearthed Arcana, but can really be applied to most versions of rolling.
For average characters (normal people type characters and non-elite NPCs) roll 4d4 per score, and elite characters (like PCs) roll 5d4 per score.
I like to use this with the Organic Generation method, basically, you roll the 6 scores in order, pick one score to reroll, and then swap two scores.
Using d4s tweaks the bell curve a bit. 4d4 gives a range of 4-16 and gives closer to center values, while 5d4 gives 5-20 range and centers a bit better on 12-13 having a minimum of 5 instead of 3, but mainly is less likely to get below 11 or above 17 compared to 4d6 drop lowest, though 5d4 has a minor chance of getting 19 or 20 but doing heroic individuals who go superhuman anyway in this game (because since when do most players even notice going superhuman), this doesn't really bother me.
---
Method 1,
15d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5, 5, 6, 2) = 56
Gives
str 1
dex 4
con 3
int
wis 4
cha 3
had an extra point on dex and wis, since 13 costs 3 points but 14 costs 5 points, so I push those to the next score, the point from dex cant stay on con so it rolls over to int, and the point from wis rolls past cha back to str(if con had been 4 points as well, then the extra point from dex would have given con 5 points and stopped there for a con score of 14)
str 2 -> 12
dex 3 -> 13
con 3 -> 13
int 1 -> 11
wis 3 -> 13
cha 3 -> 13
I'm not a huge fan of most die rolling methods of generating ability scores and your first has all my usual problems with it plus no memorable high or low scores. Even a 14 is seriously unlikely. Hard no from me.
5d4 for PCs, swap one pair, one reroll; that's OK as dice rolling methods go. At least with a dice rolling app. Still probably wouldn't use it.
Many folks that dislike rolling for scores either dislike the unbalanced and "unfairness" between players in the same party having different "levels of power," or they dislike the lack of absolute control, though most can't really define what they dislike.
You imply that neither of those is your reason for disliking rolling. So, what are your "usual problems?" Can you put them to words?
I didn't mean to imply I had special reasons - it's the first reason you gave.
our method:
The method my friends and I used for PF the last couple of times is that each player rolls a set of 4d6 keep 3, then each player can choose any of the sets and arrange the results as desired. One time all the players chose one of the sets, the other they were divided.
I think you are over-valuing those, especially as they don't get choose where those values go (which is the desired outcome of random stats) and they come at the cost of lower stats elsewhere, but if you really want to avoid it that badly, you can always use method 4 and make an array then roll to place each value.
It's certainly an interesting and unique point, thank you.
...for those playing the game, things like haggling initiate the interesting parts, things like haggling are what the interesting parts revolve around.
I have to say, a sweeping generalization like this seems to be implying that, not only are you "playing the game, not the rules", but that anyone who disagrees must be doing the opposite. Which is offensive. It's in the same vein as the Stormwind Fallacy.
But for the sake of civility, I'll assume such was not your intention and say: I disagree.
Scenes that include haggling or gambling or an evocative description of what the inn has in the pot can absolutely be interesting part of the game. But I still maintain my original position, that they do not need dice to be rolled to make them interesting, and that rolling dice at these times actually takes away from the scenes, and from others.
Haggling is like tying your shoes. It's an actual part of life and makes the world feel real.
But wealth by level is nearly as important as experience and character level.
Those two elements work best when we keep them separate. Roll the dice for the latter, focus the narrative on the prior.
Interesting Character wrote:
...However, in playing the game, metagaming undercuts the entire point. It detracts from the game. In some cases, the cost is worth it, but it is still a cost to be minimized.
No.
Here's the best example I've seen so far: the troll. It's regeneration can only be overcome by fire and acid, right? But the PC's have never fought a troll before, so do they know that?
Now, many GM's mistakenly think that allowing the characters to benefit from their player's out-of-game knowledge detracts from the immersion (because they usually don't understand what that word actually means). And to a small extent they're right; it creates an artificial situation.
So what do these GM's do? They do something like wait for an arbitrary number of rounds to go by and then say "okay, this thing clearly isn't put down by regular means. You might have to try something else..."
The problem is that the so-called solution is just as artificial, forced and nonsensical as the one brought about by metagaming, but it's also more labor-intensive and tedious. Better to just start the encounter off with "its a troll! You've heard stories about these ravenous beasts..." and call it a day. Less effort = less time spent on rules = less time thinking about the game = more immersive.
How do you suggest avoiding metagaming with your haggling stuff that isn't clunky and artificial? "This potion costs 60gp."
"But it should only cost 50gp."
"Yeah, but your character doesn't know that."
...where do you go from there to reconcile the situation?
I work extremely hard to tell a worthy story with every game. My games are about discovery and wonder and identity and loss and glory. The items, levels, dice and numbers are all secondary to that goal.
But I'll tell my player's a monster's AC right off tht bat. I mean, an experienced warrior can't tell the hulking monstrosity before him might be a tough nut to crack? Plus, it takes some of the cognative load off of me and makes,the game run smoothly.
Interesting Character wrote:
Most of my rules are designed for playing the game rather than playing the rules. Too many folks putting out systems do not understand the distinction and therefore design their systems exclusively around playing the rules (hence pf2, 5e, and especially 4e).
Have you looked at less simulatory games, like Dread or Unknown Armies or Lasers and Feelings (just grabbing random names from memory)? Games like those make it impossible to "play the numbers". Especially Dread since the are no numbers.
I've no idea if I made it clear or not, but I'm tired, so here's what I got so far,
Spoiler:
Quixote wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:
...for those playing the game, things like haggling initiate the interesting parts, things like haggling are what the interesting parts revolve around.
I have to say, a sweeping generalization like this seems to be implying that, not only are you "playing the game, not the rules", but that anyone who disagrees must be doing the opposite. Which is offensive. It's in the same vein as the Stormwind Fallacy.
Not at all, it has little to do with me vs others, one-wayism, nor rp vs numbers. (I'm autistic, people agreeing with me is a rarity as it is, though usually I'm making distinctions they aren't seeing, if I talk about a leaf, often others discuss the whole tree as one indivisible onject, roots and all) It is about perspective and how that perspective impacts how one utilizes any given game system.
Imagine a house, one person sees the house from within with xray vision, seeing the various overlaid systems of electricity, plumbing, etc, while the other person sees the house like a high up satellite picture, seeing how the house is oriented and where it is and how it compares relative to other houses and public services nearby. If these to people tried describing the house to each other, they'd almost certainly think the other person was a complete and utter moron, because despite talking about the same house, there are not really any similar points in common between their perspectives, and this also shapes how they think about the house which in turn shapes how they talk about and describe the house. There is nothing invalid about either perspective, but they are extremely different to the point of it being incredibly difficult to see the other side, like ancient egyptian vs modern english, without the rosetta stone, we'd still be guessing if there was any sense to it.
There are many interesting divides among people which are basically able to be boiled down to a pair of not quite opposing but vastly different perspectives, layered with a multitude of fine details on top. For example, most people think of causing harm and fairness as issues of moralty, but only some people think of loyalty, authority, and purity as moral issues, and while exceptions exist, it is a very good indicator of your political beliefs, because it is a fundemental difference in how people think, what they value, and how they analyze new data to fit it into their existing knowledge framework, like linux vs windows (sure both run on 1s and 0s, but beyond that the difference is vast, including memory management).
To illustrate the divide among gaming, I'll need to start with videogames.
In Baldurs Gate, you have taverns, and in these taverns are tables. Except, these tables do not act like tables. You can't burn them, you can't move them, you can't flip them over for cover, you can't rip a leg off for a makeshift mace or torch. So while they look like tables, and get talked about like tables, functionally, they are low walls of an immobile and immortal variety.
Thus, in playing videogames, there develops a split thinking, to see and reference things by form, but to strategize and plan according to function.
There is a similar split in gaming, where rollplay is a separate thing from roleplay, and generally players of this type jump back and forth between the two, very differently, handled things and claim they've fused them together.
But the other side never split form and function in the first place.
There are two outside sources who mention this much better than me, though for one it is a detail of something larger, while the other wrote an article on it.
Firstly, a youtuber made a video about how his wife played videogames for the first time,
Gaming for nongamers
At around 10:20, he brings up signaling, but it also is when he first mentions how his wife tried to do things that she should be able to do but couldn't for arbitrary reasons, something he explores more deeply in the segment starting at 14:40, in which he at one point even states "I know to apply videogame logic [but she didn't]." and a common question his wife asked was "why can't I do it this way?"
Well, at the table, that question should never be asked, because the advantage pnp has over videogames is that real world logic is applicable, but that doesn't stop people applying a sort of videogame-like logic instead. DnD up to and including 3.x was entirely designed around people applying real world logic, with a gm there to handle corner cases and make rulings as required to fit. But as you can easily see in dnd 4th, 5e, and similar, things have trended towards this game logic way of thinking and playing.
The first describes how the rules in 3.x are descriptive of the world (rather than how to play), although his main point is that most players don't understand that because they go "20 levels! Well then, obviously the heroes of any story must be lvl 20!" and that is not even close to true. This point must be understood to understand how one might look at rules as language rather than directions on how to play.
The second one is truly the core of how the two sides play. Certainly, there are plenty of details and nuance that can muddy the waters, but this highlights the rules as language vs rules as how to.
The third highlights why I say many modern systems are moving towards playing the rules. It discusses dissociated mechanics, and once you know what they are, then you'll notice how modern systems tend towards more and more of them, and less on associated mechanics. How this supports a view of playing rules instead of rules as language should be self evident, if not, let me know.
He has several more essays here,
Creations
I suggest reading Explaining Hit Points and Fetishizing Balance for more background on this topic.
Quote:
But wealth by level is nearly as important as experience and character level.
This is only true for playing the rules, because in playing the rules, the expectation is that of a game, like chess, it is expected for a certain kind of mechanical balance to exist, and understanding the ironman principle is a vital part of that.
But in playing the game, spotlight balance and naturalistic balance are more important and that gamey mechanical balance only really needs to be enough to allow everyone to enjoy it.
Though, in thinking of chess as the ideal concept of a game, I'm not certain I'd call rpgs games, more like interactive performances.
Quote:
Here's the best example I've seen so far: the troll. It's regeneration can only be overcome by fire and acid, right? But the PC's have never fought a troll before, so do they know that?
What a good example to demonstrate that this is more an issue of perspective than of design.
First, the characters live in world if trolls, they likely grew up hearing tales of troll attacks.
Second, who even notices troll regeneration? Really, that ability comes more into play if the troll escapes, unless the opponant is a farmer. Regen 5 is about a dagger strike each round. If farmers need to deal with it, they are probably going after it in a sizable group. If heroes go after it, they are well equipped and trained. Either way, the troll is almost certainly going to take so much damage every round, that its regen is a minor issue during the actual combat. So telling the players "This doesn't seem to work very well" is generally misleading unless it's a very low level party. Sure, the right element helps, but it is after the fight that regen really comes into play.
(this is actually part of a much larger issue of being so focused on the numbers, that whether characters could spot the difference gets overlooked. For example, nobody is going to notice a +1 damage to acid spells from using an acid flask as a focus. It just isn't enough to notice without a statistical analysis. You might notice it with the cantrip, maybe, but even that would require a very perceptive character. Players can see it easily though, because the players are seeing the numbers "behind the scenes." That said, regen 5 is a lot more noticable than a +1 dmg. )
But in the end, trolls are normal in their world, and characters likely know a fair number of key points about them from stories and tales, though not always true, so this type of metagaming isn't much of a problem, this is one of those low cost nuance issues. Considering a gm can change any of those traits to suit their own world (i.e. Harry Potter didn't have regenerating trolls) and that such knowkedge is easily and reasonably explained away makes this not much of an issue, but there is the difference. "explained away," a major difference here is what can or can't be explained away "reasonably." Having a bad rule and coming with excuses for it in the narrative is different from getting a roll and explaining why it was low.
Additionally, notice how you reference player knowledge of the book (potions are "supposed" to be 50gp? says who? the book), rather than experiential knowledge.
Why would your character know the base price of potions? Why would they even think there was a single price that potions are supposed to be? What about gas in the real world? Is gas sold at the same price everywhere? Does gas never change in price? We are used to gas having variable price. Some people even drive around to get the best price even when the total difference is less than a dollar. We expect variance in price because that is our experience with gas prices.
People thinking about potions as always "supposed" to cost 50gp, are simply basing that feeling on experience with previous games where that is the case, and on having a book name that price. But if they play with variable prices, then it becomes the norm, and they expect it.
As for rolling for it, it provides the same as any other non-combat check, excitement at victory, dread at defeat, and players scheming to turn things in their favor and getting tense to see if their plans fall apart.
Honestly, whether you should roll for haggling, boils down to this question, why do you have dice in the game instead of gm fiat? The answer is a combination of uncertainty, and taking the emotional blame away from the gm. It is bad for all the player plans to always work, especially to always work as intended. But if the gm arbitrarily decides on failure, then they are also responsible for that failure, and tjis can easily lead to bad feelings, if the group isn't solid or the gm less than perfect. But if it is dice, then the dice, chance, and fate take that blame instead. Consider all the things people do to dice that fail, all the superstitions and emotional investment people have in the dice. That's because the dice take the emotional blame for failure. But there is also the rather enjoyable tension of uncertainty, that edge of the seat moment when the dice begin to fall, the gambling high. The emotional highs and lows after the results also matter quite a bit.
And evem more, there is also how explaining the results can be interesting.
Did you ever watch Critical Role with Matt Mercer gming a game for voice actors? (if not, go watch a few episodes when you have time) In one episode, a PC has an arena fight, bare-fisted. The numbers were all there, and if you think of just rolling attacks and calculating dmg for 1d3 when both sides have dozens of hp, then it sounds like a snoozefest, doesn't it? But it wasn't. There was nothing mechanical that made it interesting, rather it was the gm explaining and detailing events based on the rolls that made it interesting. The critical hit where a bit of lip was ripped off. The moment at the end where the orc got that one last round of action after running out of hp and ended up winning. It wasn't about the endless d3s being rolled. The d3s provided a framework and an outcome, upon which the gm hangs details and narrative.
Quote:
Have you looked at less simulatory games, like Dread or Unknown Armies or Lasers and Feelings (just grabbing random names from memory)? Games like those make it impossible to "play the numbers".
Yep. I hate them. Personally, I don't think they are bad or anything, though I'd never call any of the one's I've seen RPGs.
First, playing the rules has nothing to do with numbers.
Second, they provide absolutely nothing I want or need. Mostly they turn out to be more storytelling games, giving more or less narrative control to different players, which is nothing like a rp session, aside from people around a table discussing a story. No, for me, the end goal is to explore the narrative via my character, to "be there," to know only what my character knows and make choices, and discover the results, to ask the question "if I was Harry Potter/Conan/Bilbo, could I have succeeded?" And you just don't get that when you are taking part in making choices about events your character didn't. A simulationist system like 3.x provides a shorthand for describing the world and events, that also handles the uncertainty that manages to account for character capability and task difficulty.
For a joint storytelling session, a pared down version of character stats would be useful to describe a characters capabilities, but anything else about how to play would not be to my liking at all, and not helpful at all for anyone I work with on storywriting.
If you randomise the prices this way, a large chunk of your campaign downtime will be all about the PCs trying to find what goods are available at 30% price and where can they sell them for 180%. Instead of, you know, adventuring or getting the plot to roll along.
I could make an adventure out of that attempt you know.
But really, if you have a rule, players will utilize it to their own gain. For example, if you go straight from the book but raise the price on potions because of a potion shortage, the players will point to the book to try to get the potions for less.
Except, really that depends on the players and whether they "buy-in" to the fiction, or stand off from it and play the rules.
There are plenty who would do as you suggest (and plenty who would never), but the gm is not bound by any requirement to let the players get away with it, though a good gm would just make an adventure out of it and the players would either enjoy it or find it distracts too much from other goals and stop on their own.
The gm is god, rules are not ironbound absolutes that gms must follow regardless of how players bend and lawyer things. In fact, I find restraining such player activity is often far more beneficial in the long run even for the players being restrained, especially if done well instead of slapping them in the face with a "No!"
Not at all, it has little to do with me vs others, one-wayism, nor rp vs numbers...It is about perspective and how that perspective impacts how one utilizes any given game system.
Okay, fair enough. As I said, it seemed like one thing, but I usually try to assume the best. Correctly, it would seem, in this case.
Interesting Character wrote:
...you just don't get that when you are taking part in making choices about events your character didn't. A simulationist system like 3.x provides a shorthand for describing the world and events, that also handles the uncertainty that manages to account for character capability and task difficulty.
I hear you. There are a lot of artsy games out there that deviante pretty far from the tradition of OD&D. But to be fair, the systems of the games I mentioned aren't really like that. You have no more narrative power as a player in Dread than you do in Pathfinder.
Interesting Character wrote:
What a good example to demonstrate that this is more an issue of perspective than of design...First, the characters live in world if trolls, they likely grew up hearing tales of troll attacks.
.Second, who even notices troll regeneration? Really, that ability comes more into play if the troll escapes...it is after the fight that regen really comes into play.
This is all missing my point. You could say they know about trolls. That skirts the issue nicely, and is what I recommend.
But if a GM decides that the characters know nothing of trolls, what then? How do you reconcile the fact that the players know something and the characters do not, without creating an artificial and forced situation that is no more satisfying and a great deal more tedium than just letting them use said knowledge in the first place?
And that's what I'm asking you: most Pathfinder players know how much a potion costs. So when you tell them "your character doesn't know that, though", what do you do to prevent a weird, hokey situation that's even less immersive and more about the rules than the game than before?
Interesting Character wrote:
People thinking about potions as always "supposed" to cost 50gp, are simply basing that feeling on experience with previous games...But if they play with variable prices, then it becomes the norm, and they expect it.
...sure. But this is a houserule for Pathfinder. And Pathfinder says a lvl1 potion costs 50gp.
I would suspect that your average player would feel cheated and frustrated if forced to pay over the market price. Especially on high-end items.
If your group is substantially different from the average forum-goers, your mileage obviously may differ. But this is a Pathfinder forum about Pathfinder.
Interesting Character wrote:
This is only true for playing the rules, because in playing the rules, the expectation is that of a game, like chess, it is expected for a certain kind of mechanical balance to exist, and understanding the ironman principle is a vital part of that.
Again, this is Pathfinder. There are rules. Some of them involve wealth and equipment.
Obviously, you're free to rewrite the game from the ground up, but you posted this for feedback.
You can play the game and not the rules all you want, but the fact is that there are rules. The flexible and can be changed or broken, but we need rules. Without them, we're back to kids on the playground going "I got you" "nu-uh, I dodged" "no, I have heat-seekers" "no, I have a force field". Rules provide structure and a random, impartial element.
What about experience? I could easily justify that, depending on the situation and the people involved, certain individuals would learn/grow more from a given challenge than others. We could roll 3d6 and modify experience given by a percentage. And some people would level significantly faster or slower tab others. And sure, eventually we'd see things average out, but there would also be long hot/cold streaks that would be insanely frustrating.
I mean, if it all averages out anyway, I'd just as soon skip the math and take the average.
Interesting Character wrote:
As for rolling for it, it provides the same as any other non-combat check, excitement at victory, dread at defeat, and players scheming to turn things in their favor and getting tense to see if their plans fall apart.
The same thing could be said about crossing the street; roll Perception, Sense Motive and Acrobatics...can you get to the other side safely?
Don't misunderstand; I know plenty about the importance of non-combat rolls. My last game's final encounter boiled down to a series of social skill checks, with victory and defeat hanging in the balance right to the final roll. I know how narrative tension works and how dice work as a mechanic.
Interesting Character wrote:
Honestly, whether you should roll for boils down to this question, why do you have dice in the game instead of gm fiat?
No, when you should roll is dependent on answering "yes" to the following questions: is there a chance for success, is there a chance for failure, are there significant consequences. In every situation where one of the answers is "no", you don't need to roll and you shouldn't.
Maybe your group is just vastly different from what appears to be "the norm" on here. I get that; my group has been playing for 20 years and has never felt the need to move beyond the base races and classes. I custom-design 90% of all monsters and magic items they find. I've never run an adventure path. People cry at our table on a semi-regular basis.
But if your group is so different that they aren't bothered by the idea of paying more for stuff than the game designers thought was fair, or of some of them getting really great deals on items while others don't, then I'm not sure how effective feedback will be. At that point, you're not really playing Pathfinder.
Sorry for taking so long, lost power, then it never popping up as unread meant I kinda forgot about it. Here is my response Quixote.
Quote:
But if a GM decides that the characters know nothing of trolls, what then? How do you reconcile the fact that the players know something and the characters do not, without creating an artificial and forced situation that is no more satisfying and a great deal more tedium than just letting them use said knowledge in the first place?
Ok, gotcha. I think is not something for a blanket solution, and also is more about the player than the gm or the rules. I never had any trouble keeping character knowledge separate from player knowledge and RPing accordingly, so I don't really have much personal experience overcoming such a problem. About the only thing a gm could really do if the players just can't overcome this, is to use custom worlds and switch around a lot of such traits, making the player's knowledge unreliable and requiring them to learn the quirks of the world. This is the solution rogue-likes use and it works well there (rogue-likes have a number of images for scrolls and potions, but it'll assign the images randomly each game, so a particular scroll symbol might be teleport in one game and cloudkill in another. A player must relearn each scroll image every game.).
That said, I consider the inability to separate player knowledge from character knowledge to be a major hindrance to roleplay itself, since, how can you be in-character if you are thinking from outside the character.
About the only advice for the player I have is to consider it similarly to rewatching a movie they know well. They know exactly what and when things will happen and yet they can usually let go of that knowledge to enjoy the film. Keeping out of character knowledge separate is a similar "letting go."
Quote:
Pathfinder players know how much a potion costs.
An entirely different sort of player knowledge. Every campaign setting is different. There is no compulsion to exactly follow the book's campaign details. Not only should players know and understand this, but those who pretend otherwise and only ever play according to book matching details are seriously limiting their potential range of experience.
But to be honest, I never had any trouble of this sort with players. Never. Granted, I never run existing campaign settings. Players may comment at first if it is new, but it really doesn't take long to adjust to the new world's quirks. Players usually are used to playing in different settings/genres, with different expectations, and adapt quickly.
Quote:
But this is a houserule for Pathfinder. And Pathfinder says a lvl1 potion costs 50gp.
This goes back to perspective on rules. Rules as language means "in Golarion, merchants rarely haggle and economics have standardized item costs worldwide, thus potions usually cost X." Rules as How-to-play means "whenever using this game system, potions cost X, period, the end. No exceptions." Do you see the difference here? One perspective sees it as something applicable as the default, and therefore up for change according to the gm if they feel it is appropriate (whether the locals have lost access to potion sources and therefore can't replenish supplies, or the custom setting has more realistic economics), while the other looks at it as some sort of law that even the gm must abide by.
Quote:
Again, this is Pathfinder. There are rules.
Again, perspective on rules. 3.x has all kinds of encouragement for bending, breaking, and reshaping specifics to suit each individual game. There is even an example for making a witch by altering the spell list for a wizard/sorcerer. The book tells the gm to make unique alterations to classes to suit a player's character.
The entire concept that rules are some sort of hard coding thing that must apply universally and be perfectly balanced is contrary to the design and intent of 3.x, and thus any system based on it.
Worse however, is the idea that these games are rules = gameplay experience, which is about as ridiculous as saying whether a movie is action or not based on whether it is live action or animated, a completely ridiculous notion. Each system is akin to live action vs anime vs pixar-style animation. Each has a different look and appeal, yet all are basically audio-visual artworks portraying a story, and all can do any genre (doesn't mean they do it equally well, but they can do it).
In the words of Barbossa, "they're more like guidelines."
Think about the discussion before, with playing the game vs playing the rules. Both use the exact same rulebook. The difference comes entirely from something beyond the rules themselves, and it is in that something else, that all the true possibilities of an RPG come within reach.
This is one reason I say RPGs are more like Interactive Performance than true games, because the rules just aid communication and add tension plus uncertainty, unlike "real" games where the goal is to use one's knowledge and mastery of the rules to achieve a specific game state, usually called victory.
Obviously, balance and perfectly known rules are essential to "real" games, but when rules are just communication and add tension, they literally have no need to be balanced, there is usefulness in system mastery but there is no ending game state that is desired to be achieved.
In Game Theory, there are two game types, finite games and infinite games. Finite games are played to reach a specific range of outcomes. Infinite games are played to keep the game going. Consider a moment just how different your strategy might be between the two.
Quote:
but we need rules. Without them, we're back to kids on the playground going "I got you" "nu-uh, I dodged" "no, I have heat-seekers" "no, I have a force field". Rules provide structure and a random, impartial element.
As for this, that is why we have a gm. Being the arbiter is a major part of the gm's job. They are the one to be impartial and provide the elements required for the game (which does not always need that structure).
The biggest issue here is player expectations. Some players form all their expectations superficially on the mechanics, while others form their expectations on their understanding of the narrative milieu and use the mechanics to communicate that understanding.
Players who base their expectations purely on mechanics are missing out on a lot of details and a massive amount of possibilities. There are no rules for flipping over a tabld for cover, because knowing that we can do this comes from understanding the narrative milieu, not the mechanics, and that we do not need mechanics to say, very simply, that we flip the table and duck behind it.
Quote:
The same thing could be said about crossing the street; roll Perception, Sense Motive and Acrobatics...can you get to the other side safely?
Quote:
No, when you should roll is dependent on answering "yes" to the following questions: is there a chance for success, is there a chance for failure, are there significant consequences. In every situation where one of the answers is "no", you don't need to roll and you shouldn't.
That would be the answer I was referencing. Not needing to roll for crossing the street safely most of the time, doesn't mean the rules should be incapable of handling it. During a chase scene through a busy city, suddenly, not getting squashed while crossing the street becomes less certain, less easy, more risky, and adds to the tension of trying to catch, or escape, the opposition, but that is only really felt by the players when they suddenly need to roll for crossing the street.
Thus, in my opinion, being able to model crossing the street is a good thing (having too many rules is bad, so a system that can do it but in a simple way that doesn't bloat the rules too much is better). The trick is entirely when and where to use it. A guy crossing the street when all is calm and right with the world is trivial, but the same guy crossing the same street with hellspawn on his heels is no longer trivial, and the risk of getting hit is higher, and the consequences are potentially lethal. Likewise, a demi-god with millions of gp in their pocket shouldn't be bothered with the trivial items of a few copper, but a group struggling to survive with basically no money, then every transaction is important.
When and where to use the rules is not just important, not just for fun, but critical to the experience, and also in displaying what a particular campaign is about. If you skip most combats, that is saying that combat is not the point of the campaign, but if you reduce all encounters to combat by discouraging diplomacy and trickery, then you are saying the campaign is about combat.
But it also acts as reinforment. If you want magic items to be rare and for each magic item to be special, then using these rules to purchase each one emphasizes that they are special and far more than just mere equipment.
Choosing when and where to apply the rules vs glazing over them, is a commentary from the gm, in the same way that Zootopia is in part a commentary on racism.
Talking to me about different settings and Rule Zero...heh. Oh, man.
Look in all honesty, I don't belong on these forums. I know absolutely nothing about Golarion. I don't know anything about supplemental material, about gunslingers and medium and this archetype or that feat.
I have several hundred pages dedicated to a few different campaign settings for the roll20 system. I have been tinkering with classes, skills and spells since I started playing this game. I custom make almost every monster and absolutely every magic item I use each session.
I bring all this up to clarify: I'm not some by-the-books, rules-lawyering, min-maxing number-cruncher. I get what you're saying. I do.
I just still don't agree. That's all.
So the way you handle the troll problem...is go avoid it entirely? Alright.
Here's the thing about metagaming and character knowledge versus player knowledge; I sort of agree. Suspension of Disbelief is key to any successful game.
But true, complete separation of what your character knows and what you know can't be done. Because you are, in fact, one person. With one brain. You can try to keep them apart. You might even be successful in significant ways. But that's a tough line to draw in the sand.
So instead of worrying about what I know versus what the character knows, I just focus on telling stories and running games where knowing the monster's AC or exactly how many hp your allies have left doesn't damage the Suspension of Disbelief. I've found it to be less meaningless work and more rewarding for me and the players.
I would suggest the Angry GM's articles on hacking the game. Specifically, figuring out when or if you should.
A hack should only ever come about to enhance gameplay, never at the cost of it.
And the concept of haggling as an in-game system with dice and actual rules...I can't see what it adds. I can see that it's "more realistic", that it unbalances the second most important commodity in the game and requires some significant mental juggling on behalf of any players with prior experience with other games using the original system, but that's it.
I think I've made my argument as clear as I can, and I think you've made yourself understood on my end. I can appreciate the spirit the houserule was made in; that's a rare thing in these parts. But I just can't get behind it.
I'm not some by-the-books, rules-lawyering, min-maxing number-cruncher.
have to do with this;
Quote:
I have been tinkering with classes, skills and spells since I started playing this game. I custom make almost every monster and absolutely every magic item I use each session.
---
Also, golarion is just a setting, and thus site is about the systems, but really, all rp amd rpg discussions are generally welcome here.
There is often a correlation between the two being mutually exclusive.
The more by the books you are, the less you deviate from the books, as that is what "by the books" means.
Interesting Character wrote:
Also, golarion is just a setting, and thus site is about the systems, but really, all rp amd rpg discussions are generally welcome here.
Sure, that's why, though I may not "belong", I'm still here.
I wanted to make clear that I don't "play the rules", as you say. I'm about the game, 100%. My reasons for disliking the hack are entirely independent from that concept.
There is often a correlation between the two being mutually exclusive.
The more by the books you are, the less you deviate from the books, as that is what "by the books" means.
The correlation is merely popularity, not causal. (much like the common example that ice cream does not cause aggressive criminal behaviour)
As for mutual exculsiveness, not at all. They are unrelated concepts and do not impact each other. They are orthogonal.
Quote:
I wanted to make clear that I don't "play the rules", as you say. I'm about the game, 100%. My reasons for disliking the hack are entirely independent from that concept.
Your comment though doesn't actually do that at all. (I accept your dislike and leave that aside from this discussion). In fact, it rather does the opposite.
It isn't about number crunching min-maxing, nor about narrative. It's about the scope, methodology, and perspective of thinking.
The correlation is merely popularity, not causal...They are unrelated concepts and do not impact each other. They are orthogonal.
I am aware of these things. But many are not, which is why I wanted to clarify.
Although, in my personal experience, the people who were not interested in telling a story or portraying a real, interesting character were amongst the most "power game-y" I've ever rolled with, and did not at all fit the dynamic at my table. But again, that's just what I've seen firsthand.
Interesting Character wrote:
Your comment though doesn't actually do that at all...It isn't about number crunching min-maxing, nor about narrative. It's about the scope, methodology, and perspective of thinking.
I can't say I follow, but I don't think it matters much at this point. So sure.
In relation to the next subject in the thread, I think this form of ability score generation manages to take the unfairness of rolling and combine it with the rigidity of point-buy.
But I don't mind point-buy; rolling was nothing but an annoyance for me and my players. I believe whatever inspiration can be found in random score generation can also be found in a few moment's quiet thought. The only thing rolling seems to offer is nostalgia.
But if you like rolling for whatever reason, this seems as good a compromise as any.
On the contrary, from personal experience, I can say that, at least for some people, being forced to deal with certain obstacles and having aspects of character outside personal control then having to portray them is liberating, weird, and fun.
The character I enjoyed playing the most was a pregen I got stuck with because I was last to pick. It was a red-headed, fiery, sorceress. I didn't pick anything but her name, and she is still, after 15 years, is the character I had the most fun playing.
I also think that more work people put into building a character, the less accepting they are of the character dying (hardly universal, but even those who accept death still desire more meaningful deaths the more they invest in the character, unless they are trying to bring in a new character). Character investment is vital, but also a bit a balancing act.
There is also the discovery of character vs creation of character. With point buy, you must choose where to put points, you create the character, but with rolling, you often have a much more vague idea and thus discover the character. Many questions can come up from rolling that simply do not arrive from point buy Choosing to have low strength is vastly different from being forced to have low strength.
Another case of "what experience are you looking to get from the game?"
Ok, next houserule, a simplification of size rules that also not only makes more sense in some ways but also scales a lot better from insects to the death star. Currently, diminuative vs fine are one step apart but the modifiers between them are 4 times larger than medium vs small. Fine also is much too large for flies, so any interactions about trying to hit a fly are way off. (imagine a fly as a familiar, or something like ant-man. Potential, but difficult to use). So having a larger difference between sizes is easier to figure out and remember.
A couple aspects are altered, i.e. ability scores don't change, but dmg does.
It also makes it easier to adjust a few size related spells to gain a wider range of sizes as cl goes up (i.e. enlarge person increasing someone by 1 size per 4cl round up, is much easier especially when the modifiers are relative rather than objective and stated beforehand).
I explain things quite a bit, but in the end it is actually simpler than standard rules, but does put more of it during play rather than during prep. However, you could technically prep a lot of things knowing the size of players.
I'm sure there are a few missing points, but I'm tired and wrote a lot already so here is what I got so far.
SIZE
Size modifiers are relative. A creature has a size, but no modifiers to that size, instead, when interacting with something of a different size, size modifiers are applied depending on the difference between sizes.
[A bit behind the scenes, useful for manipulating the scheme but not required for general play: All sizes are by volume, with different shapes compared making a box of the same volume. Humans for example generally fit in a box of 7'tall by 2' wide, and 2' deep (80% of humans are between 5' and 6'. Approximately.). Same volume as a cube is about a 3' cube. Any creature that can fit in about the same volume is also the same size. The 3' is the key length for medium size creatures. This length halved or doubled gives the volumes for the next size down/up. Thus small size is a cube of 18". Naturally, you can just multiply/divide the volume by 8 as well.
While sizes can have names, they also are numbered based on how many categories larger/smaller they are compared to medium (human-sized).
Horses for example are +1 size, aka large (though clydesdales and shires can actually hit +2 size, huge).
From this point, doing math with size means the number of size categories of difference, defaulting to larger, and inverse size means to reverse positive to negative. Like math, if the size is smaller than it flips the sign X+(-Y)=X-Y.
I.e. adding size to X, means X+the number of size categories larger, while adding inverse size to X means X+the number of size categories smaller.
-Attack and AC. You add the size of target to your attack roll. You don't modify AC since the attacker always gets modified now. (previously, for example, small size always got a bonus to both AC and atk, but that was because medium didn't get a penalty to hit, that was handled by the small character's bonus to AC. Here it is shifted entirely to the attacker, so medium still has the same chance to hit small, it is just a penalty to their atk instead of a bonus to the small's ac)
-Perception and hiding. There are two aspects here, size and range. After all, two small characters should have the same chance to see each other as two medium characters, but only at distances relative to their size. A small character noticing another at 30' is the same as a medium character noticing a medium person at 60'. Thus penalties/bonuses to perception are by changing the range penalties.
Normal perception checks are -1 per 10' of distance (just like standard rules). For each size double the range increment (i.e. to spot a small creature the dc is -1 per 5'.) or the penalty per increment (or spotting a small creature can be -2 per 10'). For example, a ring is -6 size, 6 categories smaller than a human, as -1 per half-inch is practically unusable, a -12 per 5' dc to spot is much more practical. In the other direction, increasing range is easiest, a -1 per 80' to spot a gargantuan dragon is much easier than a -.125 per 10'.
Note: a +4 to hide in the normal rules for small creatures doesn't really match up here, but really, any kind of regular scheme that achieves an exact match is entirely unworkable at other scales. A ring laying on a desk next you would have a -24 to see (literally invisible to a common person) and yet moving across the room would hardly matter becoming a -25, vs these rules in which a ring on a desk would be easily seen when adjecent but across the room a -12, noticable but unlikely to be noticed without intentionally looking. It does match the normal rules to spot a small creature at 60' however, which seems a decent match up point.
-Ranges. It always seemed odd to me that a sprite casting burning hands would reach as far as a giant casting burning hands. To the sprite, it could wipe a whole company of other sprites, but to the giant, it barely starts a "campfire" and would basically be a single target touch spell against other giants. Throwing an axe is even weirder to have a sprite and a giant have the same throwing range.
Thus, the idea that range scales with size. 15' to a medium creature is 7.5' for a small creature. Thus, no matter what size, all creatures interacting is the same regardless of scale.
Additionally, each size is assumed to have a space, and thus if desired, the scale of grid or ruler can be set according to the smallest size creature with larger creatures taking up more of the smaller spaces.
[I normally ad hoc the spaces for convience. With a party of small and medium PCs for example, having everyone take up one space is a lot easier, and when you have mefium/small creatures in melee with a gargantuan creature, the idea of "fighting space" starts to fall apart, and facing against a colossal creature with feet the size of PCs, it is ridiculous.
Further, sometimes I'll go gridless and use a ruler instead, wargamer style, in which case 1" will be 4' instead of 5, since 1/4" tick marks work well as 1' marks for medium characters. Of course, playing sprite or mice characters, 1" equals 2" or 3".]
-Damage and HP. All creatures have ability scores and HP as medium creatures, instead, when damage is dealt to creatures of different sizes, the damage is adjusted.
Damage is doubled per size smaller, and halved per size larger. So a medium creature dealing 14 dmg against a large creature and a small creature, the large creature takes 7 dmg and the small creature takes 28 dmg.
Size affects damage before any dr or other dmg mitigation. So a medium creature dealing 14 fire dmg to a large creature with 5 fire resistance, the 14 gets halved to 7, then 5 subtracted, for 2 dmg to the creature.
-Carry capacity and strength. Carry capacity doesn't change, it is halved for each size smaller and doubled for each size larger.
Strength score doesn't change from size, but each size larger gains a +2 strength bonus on strength checks and similar cases of brute strength against DCs for medium creatures. In the reverse direction, it is +2 to the DC for each size smaller.
This adjustment also applies to objects. So a large sized door has a +2 DC to bash open.
Dunno that I'd call even the first part a simplification. Numbers that are baked in in advance are less of a problem than numbers calculated on the spur of the moment.
Halflings and goblins suddenly becoming impractical as PCs is an interesting choice. Not one I think I'd make. Being smol-but-dangerous is a common player fantasy (especially with women) and one that I wouldn't care to stop.
I did some explanation and comparison to standard rules. And I guess for someone who doesn't bother to understand the underlying system and just take use prewritten materials I can see finding it more complex, but for folks like myself who make new stuff a lot and need to understand the underlying system and how to build monsters and such accordingly it is simpler for them as there are fewer points of adjustment and simpler rules for making said adjustments.
For example, attackers get a modifier vs the standard attack and defense get modifiers.
---
I should note that a lot of these changes come from what I'm trying to do for my own settings and system.
And in my settings, there is a great deal more variety (I have quadrupeds with magic but no free hands, and even a race of intelligent octopi).
There are races only a few inches tall living among races that are human sized and larger. And having the small races get 1 hp might seem right when attacked by a giant, but doesn't work when attacked by other 2" creatures. Two creatures of the same size fighting each other should deal about equal damage regardless of whether they tiny, medium, or gargantuan.
I needed something more unified that could work at all scales and still interact with other scales freely. As stated above, the standard rules fall apart the further you get from medium size.
And while charging ahead into combat without plan nor tactical thought might be less viable for smaller creatures against large ones, well I'm fine with that as I don't really like such lazy thinking. Not that I discount it as fun for some, it is a valid gameplay style, but it is still lazy and not what I want to see. Players in my games should be thinking more strategically and ysing environment and tactics to win, and me pitting them against giants should require them to do more than stand in front swinging a sword.
I play ddo, and it always bothers me that fighting giants feels more like humans with character models scaled up. To me that's terrible design. A giant should be challanging because of it's size, not it's hp count.
Simple means less steps, not more logical sense. You've added a ton to the complexity and cognitive load of the game. It may be more accurate, but it is not simple.
I do like the modifiers happening in one direction. Instead of a small/large character getting a +/-1 to AC and to hit, attackers get penalties, period.
When I was working on reverse engineering the d20 system, I considered making saving throws static defenses like AC so the attacker is always rolling the dice.
With tiny combatants, I just make sure that 1hp represents a series of feints and thrusts, etc.
Giants are fine when they're 9th ft tall or so. But in my last game with a 100ft stone colossus, I threw out the rulebook in favor of something that felt more ponderous, heavy and irresistible. You don't fight that thing. You climb up it's legs and fight the gargoyles that perch on it's shoulders as you make for the source of it's power inside it's chest.
Presented as-is, these houserules are a hopeless tangle of justifications and theories. Some neat, orderly tables would be useful, but even then, I doubt the vast majority of players would want to take on that additional burden.
If a ruling or mechanic really, truly fits and makes sense, I've found that you don't need to explain why you changed it or what you were going for. the reason is self-evident.
If a ruling or mechanic really, truly fits and makes sense, I've found that you don't need to explain why you changed it or what you were going for. the reason is self-evident.
I don't actually agree with this. I've seen cases where a rule was regarded as complicated and nonsensical until a single comparison was made and everybody instantly changed their minds and said it was simple and good.
The right perspective can vastly change one's understanding and can be the difference between seeing something as complicated or as simple.
I don't actually agree with this. I've seen cases where a rule was regarded as complicated and nonsensical until a single comparison was made and everybody instantly changed their minds and said it was simple and good.
And I've seen houserules justified with A or B explanations, which made sense, but fell apart soon after with situations C-Z.
A good metaphor gives you the feel of what it's representing; hit points and damage give you the jist of dwindling resources and failing strength. If you took the metaphor out entirely, gave two players a series of numbers on sheets with no explanation as to what they meant, and they walked through the rules of Pathfinder's combat system without any of the role-playing elements, just the numbers, there would still be a sense of conflict and struggle and immediate risk.
Compare that to grit/panache/whatever, or the horrific crafting system. They don't feel like anything.
The damage and perception stuff with size you mentioned. As soon as you began, I knew where you were going and why. It makes sense. It's just also very, very complicated.
At any rate, I suggested less justifications because it would keep your posts shorter and more accessible.
I didn't say it was hard to understand. I said I didn't like the consequences on the game of these last changes.
One more bonus added situationally during the game is bad in a game which has too many already. A bonus which you can add when you make characters or prepare the game is easier.
Saying that a player character with effectively half as many hit points as the others, doing half as much damage as the others, just needs to play smarter - is dismissive of valid concerns. You're acting defensive here because you're feeling attacked, I get that, but please think about opposing arguments. Dismissing opposing points of view will make your game worse usually.
I didn't say it was hard to understand. I said I didn't like the consequences on the game of these last changes.
That was a response to the other guy's post. No worries. :)
Quote:
You're acting defensive here because you're feeling attacked, I get that, but please think about opposing arguments. Dismissing opposing points of view will make your game worse usually.
I'm not being defensive, but there is no single way to "properly" play. Even a single system, such as pathfinder, is less of a game and more of a whole medium (in that movies is a medium). Pathfinder can be played in a multitude of drastically different styles.
I am unhappy with the popular norms that are cropping up. If you never played the game and just went by the general community, you'd think a whole lot of very limiting things about rpgs in general.
Did you know the 3.x was designed for most encounters to be low lvl encounters, with a few encounters as about equal, and the occasional boss as above lvl? Well, not many caught that it seems, as one of the first modules officially put out for the system was met with tons of resistance to the very notion. Wotc didn't make that "mistake" again despite it being right in the rulebook.
I don't know where ideas like "all encounters should be of appropriate cr" came from, but such ideas are bad for the community. Add in that I don't like the style of play that comes from such ideas, and I figure on fighting against them by promoting different styles of play.
My rules are all designed around a vastly different methodology than what is popular because people failing to see the popular way as merely one style in a sea of many is terrible for the community (it is, sadly, great for businesses, as it makes it easier for them to design products with less risk).
I do not discount arguements, I consider them, consider how to mitigate them or if they are not an issue for the style a rule was designed for.
I will not however, change my desired outcome to fit the popular style.
I have a desired style in mind, and that style is not the desired style found on the forefront of modern rpgs. I look at feedback with a mind towards how to make the best game I am trying to make, not the best game that popular trends want to make.
Quote:
One more bonus added situationally during the game is bad in a game which has too many already. A bonus which you can add when you make characters or prepare the game is easier.
Indeed, but as I mentioned, a gm knows the sizes of the pcs, and do a lot of these things ahead of time, or with simple enough tools they'd probably be using anyway.
Further, it really isn't that bad in play with good techniques. Techniques are as important as rules. Rolling damage with an attack roll for example, is a matter of technique rather than rules, and speeds up play considerably.
For the most part, a gm can handle this on their own, or give as much as the players are willing to handle, to the players. Each group is unique, and quite frankly, gms could use the entire set of rules on their own without the players seeing a single rule or stat if desired. It is all about what the players and gm are willing to use.
Quote:
Saying that a player character with effectively half as many hit points as the others, doing half as much damage as the others, just needs to play smarter - is dismissive of valid concerns.
That is not what I meant, I was referring to a group of players against a monster if larger size needing to play smarter, and well just plain all around. I'm a fan of Tucker's kobolds, and prefer games where the players are doing the smarter tactics as well.
A player choosing to play something at a disadvantage should naturally develop tactics around that disadvantage.
The problem you reference as a concern is a valid one, but also comes from a certain style of play and perspective I don't want to encourage.
It is uncommon for me to find players who treat race any differently from class. Players tend to treat other races as humans with oft forgotten cosmetic alterations.
The most I've heard of halflings is the occasional short joke.
I've played mostly tieflings and kobolds for years, only about 10% of them have faced any kind of interaction based on their race, including from npcs. A bad thing in my opinion.
So yea, for players who expect that kind of treatment, to have their race all but ignored, then sure, your concern is valid because it doesn't fit with gameplay expectations.
But if you come to my game as a tiefling, and I tell you beforehand that tieflings will face discrimination, are you going to call me out as unfair when your tiefling faces discrimination? The same applies to small-sized characters, if you go into it knowing that standing in front swinging a sword is like a child swinging a sword at an adult, aka, not a good idea, then you are either going to create the character around this strategic disadvantage, or go find a group closer to your style of play.
I'm finding myself agreeing with your view of the hobby as a whole, but I can't say I would be even remotely tempted to use any of the rules that you say came from said viewpoint.
Tieflings being discriminated against and halfling dealing half/taking double damage are vastly different scenarios. The first could be interesting, narratively speaking. The second is a mechanical handicap so severe I don't see how being a small race is even doable. Tactics don't even enter into it.
I think it's clear that your games, whatever, whyever and however they are, are so vastly different from even other heavily modified and houseruled settings and games that the chance of meaningful feedback here is slim to none.
You might be surprised at the usefulness of good feedback even when I don't noticably use it. Additionally, such feedback helps others who are creating for more popular styles of play, and regardless of my current design focus, I design other stuff too.
As for small creatures having such a great disadvantage to be unusable, there are two considerations, one of which is the alternate health rules which in hindsight should have been brought up first, though I was generally thinking of all players being the same size, when I posted it anyway. The second consideration is that of the "old school" ideal of combat being something to be avoided, which was a major point behind gold=xp, since players got rewarded for getting past foes regardless of whether they fought, snuck, or diplomanced their way through. In such a perspective, when fighting is not a direct goal, being small and better able to sneak through is an advantage possibly worth the risk, especially if there are companions who can tank while you shoot from out of reach if fighting does break out.
My health rules also have much greater pools of hp, but focus more on trying to get a good hit that strikes vitals rather than just wearing down hp, in which case, a smaller creature's bonus to hit can make it easier to strike vital points. The monsters without vitals are therefore much greater challanges.
Also, old style gaming where hirelings were common is also something I encourage. If players have the goal of fighting things, especially big things, then the pcs being heroes leading a unit of soldiers is the ideal, (especially as it makes players feel more heroic seeing themselves compared to average individuals, too many players don't truly realize just how superhuman their characters really are. Someone thinking of conan, aragorn, eregon, or even gandalf as lvl 15-20 characters are sadly mistaken, and it is mostly because they never directly see themselves compared to normal people in game, or when they do, it is like paizo material where the common folk are inflated beyond all reason).
The hobbit and lotr are good examples of what adventures should be.
Just in the hobbit, the trolls almost won and were defeated by trickery, the goblins almost won but were escaped (not defeated) by sowing confusion and disruption, and when they do truly stand and fight at the battle of five armies, they actually have armies to fight with them.
It would be truly fair to say, that players looking to be murderhobos would not enjoy my games, unless maybe they were leaders of a merc company and actually used their men in the tactics of battle.
Edit;
You might also consider what it is like to fight smaller enemies with these rules. What is it like for the party to face off against a bunch of goblins? Suddenly, their size becomes a major factor in why individual goblins are seen as weak and pathetic in a way truly reinforced by the mechanics.
In my opinion, combat is NEVER a goal, just a means to an end. A fun, satisfying means. Narratively and tactically.
Anyone who says sneaking past a monster doesn't count as defeating it doesn't understand what an encounter is. So we're in agreement, there. I just had my three lvl5 PC's encounter 7 mammoths. Combat is by no means the only (or even typical) answer to a problem.
With that said, it seems like a small character in your game should never really try to fight. Combat is a non-option in all but the most extenuating of circumstances.
In my experience, hirelings bog down the game and take away from the PC's. Like reading a novel with a whole mess of supporting characters.
The hobbits...the whole point of that work was that you don't need to be a hero to do great things. The smallest, most humble of us--they make for compelling protagonists, but if I'm playing a game, I don't know how much fun I'll have if I'm playing Samwise and my friend was playing Gimli.
I can safely say that "murderhobos" have no place at my table. The characters are real, living people. The story matters. So I get that. And while I'll make adjustments to basically every element of every aspect of my games, I've never felt the need to reinvent the wheel to this extent.
I kinda enjoy fiddling with rules systems (rpgs or other games, or even other things like ui and ux. Total launcher is my favorite android launcher cause I'm always making a new interface for my phone [another reason why I hate iphones, you use their interface or go find a different phone, and judging by their app store,they don't even know what an icon is])
Though, most of these rules stem from some inadequacy I want to fix. The size rules for example, I have a setting with a broad range of sizes and having a 3" tall character take an equal beating to a human is just plain wrong.
I had thought about stepping up/down dice sizes, but in many cases the dice end up as the smaller portion of dmg anyway, making that tactic nearly pointless unless changing nearly all dmg to be pure dice. Stepping dice down also has the issue of < 1 hp happening very quickly, in cases like a dagger after only 1 or 2 size differences.
Addding/subtracting a flat value, such as 5, fails as it doesn't matter what kinda of dmg or attack took place, and a dagger vs greatsword should have proportional adjustments, as having a dagger double it's output but a greatsword only get +1/3 or 1/2 is nonsensical.
I'd prefer an objective ratio of 1/3 or maybe 1/4 for all dmg instead of half/double, but that is much more difficult in play than halving/doubling. That's probably what I'd do for a computer rpg using my rules though.
As that seems to be the biggest sticking point, I'm certainly still considering alternatives, but for narrative milieu it isn't that bad, and so it's the best option I've got so far, other than to outright ignore size entirely when it comes to dmg.
I do as well. Before I found Pathfinder, my table was using archetypes, making up new feats and all sorts of nonsense.
The Angry GM's articles on hacking the game are worth a read. Specifically, when you should, when you shouldn't and how to do it. He's long-winded, but that doesn't look like it'll be an issue.
General question, how would it feel to need to count a number per a another number, such as saying +1 per 5, or +2 per 10? And if used, should it be limited to 5 and 10, or can other numbers be used like +1 per 3, or -1 per 7?
Alright next big modification, this one however I have not yet had a chance to playtest in any iteration, though it is in some aspects similar to vitality/wounds.
HEALTH
Normal HP works similar to Vitality, representing both non-specific physical issues, such as bruises, scratches, bloodloss, exhaustion, etc, and non-physical aspects like focus, determination and morale.
A creature has a lot more HP than before, but it isn't the point to kill enemies by depleting HP (in most cases, but some monsters, like oozes and golems, will probably need to be killed via HP depletion making them harder enemies). Creatures can of course still die this way, but it is more like being beat to death or bleeding out rather than dying from a wound such as a headshot or being cut in half.
A creature has a number of benchmarks equal to their con score. Each benchmark in turn has a number of HP as rolled by their Hit Dice (by default roll once and apply to each, or as an alternative rule, roll for each benchmark and arrange from highest to lowest to add a bit more nuance).
When a benchmark has been depleted of HP, it applies a cumulative -1 to all checks and requires a DC 5 fort save to remain conscious (the penalty from previously depleted benchmarks apply).
If half the benchmarks are depleted, the creature becomes fatigued. If 3/4 (round towards fewer remaining benchmarks) of the benchmarks are depleted, the creature is exhausted.
If all HP is lost from lethal damage, the character dies. If all HP is lost but less than the total HP is from lethal damage and the remainder is from a temporary effect or nonlethal damage, then the character is unconscious with no save.
When taking damage, if the damage exceeds the size of the HD, the attack roll succeeded by 10 or more, or if it is a critical hit, then an injury is gained.
Each Injury from slashing or piercing damage or from critical hits will cause Bleed 1. Bleed is a condition that depletes HP every round, so Bleed 1 depletes 1 HP every round. Bleed effects usually stack and always bypass DR.
When an injury is gained, a severity check is made rolling a d20 minus the damage plus armor, natural armor, and DR/resistance if applicable.
-A result less than 0 causes the character to become dying and unconscious.
-A result from 0 to 5 the character becomes disabled (at the beginning of their turn each turn they can make a DC 10 fort save to lose the disabled condition).
-A result of 10 or less will take the weapon's critical multiplier in con damage and gain a severe injury of some sort such as losing a limb, a serious gash with additional bleed damage, etc (in addition to being disabled or dying if applicable), basically something requiring a restoration/regeneration spell or masterful surgery to truly fix (though lesser effects can still prevent this injury from leading to death).
- A result above 10 but below 15 gains 1 con damage and a moderate injury, such as would cause severe penalties to relevant checks, damaged eyes/ears (could be cured with remove blindness/deafness) or similar, broken bones, and stuff that basically requires skillful medicine to heal.
-A result above 15 is a minor injury as might impart a moderate penalty to relevant checks. The exact injuries and their nature is left to the GM so they can be made to fit the damage type and attack.
-(an optional rule is to roll for damage location and thus have the injury results be according to the injury location, as well as whether to apply armor [suddenly helmets matter!])
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, such as penalties to checks, blindness, reduced speed, etc).
Injuries must be healed via the Heal skill (to set for proper natural healing and prevent permanent penalty, or truly fix if the tools are capable of it) or with regeneration/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.
