The Gaming Den

Incidentally, if I was talking about a D&D-esque fantasy RPG, I'd use:
Might, Agility, Wits, Ego

Might and Agility being separate because, realism in physiology aside, most people want to have a distinction between the huge tough guy and the speedy nimble guy.
Wits covering perception and general quick thinking. Being a genius can be covered by high skills and/or a trait. Also resistance to stuff like illusions.
Ego covering force of personality and resistance to stuff like mind control, fear, psychic crush, etc. "Forceful" uses of Charisma fall under this, manipulation is maybe Wits or pure skills, being pretty is a trait.


RadiantPhoenix, I like that list for Star Trek - definitely an improvement on the GURPS one. The only thing it may be missing is that piloting is sometimes important beyond a binary background option. But OTOH, it doesn't seem as important as the five you list, so maybe it falls under Engineering + background.

Ice9 wrote:RadiantPhoenix, I like that list for Star Trek - definitely an improvement on the GURPS one. The only thing it may be missing is that piloting is sometimes important beyond a binary background option. But OTOH, it doesn't seem as important as the five you list, so maybe it falls under Engineering + background.

I would probably make it depend on the obstacle -- pushing the ship to the limits in what's basically a known patter would be Engineering (unless you were in some sort of squishy organic ship, in which case it would be biology or social, depending on whether it was intelligent or not), trying to dodge incoming fire or stuff like that (probably in a runabout or shuttle or something, because you generally can't do that with the Enterprise) would be Body(, etc.?)

Backgrounds would almost certainly exist that made piloting challenges easier (or harder!) under various circumstances ("reduce the pilot penalty for damaged engines by 2", "+1 to pilot a starship", "-2 to pilot a non-Earth vessel")

My current thoughts are that:

• 'Social' is the Bard (with or without music)
• 'Body' is the Rogue (and all the other martial classes)
• 'Science' is a Diviner (except inside the body)
• 'Engineering' is a Transmuter (except for polymorph and other organic effects)
• 'Biology' is the school of Necromancy (including healing, as in 2e) with some diagnostic stuff.

The issue of a player playing the captain would hopefully be resolved by the players working cooperatively to decide what the best decisions are, but if there's a problem anticipated, my advice would be to either make sure the captain is one of the players who will try to keep everyone working together (probably the player most concerned with the team winning), or, if that's not possible, have Mister Cavern play the captain (and ask for input).

Advancement would probably be mostly by points in core skills, specialization would be rather expected. I'm thinking that the number would either be small (e.g., 0-9) and start at a fixed number, or start at a random number (like, "roll 1d3 for each stat, then add like 5 points total as you choose") and go up to a moderate number (like 25). There could also be starting arrays chosen by backgrounds, and then points either distributed as the player chose or added by backgrounds.

I'll work out what typical numbers for the various officer positions would be on a spreadsheet maybe.

EDIT:
Maybe something like this? (from this link: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bridge_crew)

	Social	Science	Engineering	Biology	Body
Commanding officer	5
Chief communications officer	4		1
Chief science officer		5
Chief medical officer				5
Chief helmsman			1		4
Chief navigator	1	4
Flight controller		1			4
Chief engineer			5
Head counselor	4			1
Chief tactical officer	2		2		1
Security chief	1				4
Chief operations officer	1	2	2
Strategic operations officer	4				1
Intelligence officer	3	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5
Chief of operations	2		3
Head stellar cartographer		5

Obviously, some players will want their characters to be somewhat different from standard, so the system would be designed with some slack.

if you wanted you could reduce the 6 to 3: body, mind, social(?); but that really confines things too much.

Not really BESM does Body, Mind, and Soul. That works well enough.

Aryxbez wrote:Eh, I think we should care about "Legacy" as much as we care about 5th edition, or theRPGsite? does about actual design

Meh, ditch the legacy, keep the stats. 3e changed the bonuses, changed how they applied and what they applied to, changed the generation of them, changed the maximums and minimums and class differentials, changed basically everything they could change while still having 18 Str be a thing in the game.

Sacred Cows, man. Some shit's just got to be in the game if you want to sell it to people who enjoyed the last edition. Familiarity and stuff. No one gives a shit about Kits or Non-Weapon Proficiencies or Paragon Paths or Prestige Classes, but having 18 Str should make you a better Fighter or it's not fucking D&D (and players will not like it).

Yes, lots of other schemes would probably work better, people could stop worrying about how Int and Wis are basically the same damn thing, with Con and Str being so obviously linked in monsters and most PCs as a "bulk size" thing, and bla bla bla.

tussock wrote: Sacred Cows, man. Some shit's just got to be in the game if you want to sell it to people who enjoyed the last edition. Familiarity and stuff.

with Con and Str being so obviously linked in monsters and most PCs as a "bulk size" thing, and bla bla bla.

Bleh! for most part, I could care less for those, especially if it gets in the way of making a better Fantasy game. Thing is, pending who that is, they're probably not going to be terribly too interested in your product anyway, much with AD&D fans, Paizils, and 4rries (as we've denoted them anyway) are going to stick with their inferior products. When bringing in new blood/reasonable RPG fans, they're probably not going to care too much or know all the legacy details, so it won't really matter. Besides, this theoretical revamped Fantasy game wouldn't even need to have the "D&D" logo on it, can still have Beholders, Mindflayers, GIANT FROG, and Dragons, just need to switch the naming conventions around is all.

It'd probably be better off for it as well, sacred cows shouldn't limit design nor exist just for sake of existing, especially when it has no merit.

Also, define to me what makes something D&D, I've heard before people throw the concern of "then its not D&D", so defining those parameters would make it easier for understanding in Discussion (and NO Shadzar, I've already heard your input on this in the past, and wouldn't care to hear your contribution in all due respect). Far as I'm aware, it's a game of Heroic Fantasy where BA dudes go into dungeons and fight assortment of monsters, with might, magic, and guile, and as they progress their dungeons get fancier, monsters get bigger/smarter/faster and that much more important in scope.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your second comment with Str/Con linked to monsters, and PC "Bulk Size".

Ice9 wrote:Incidentally, if I was talking about a D&D-esque fantasy RPG, I'd use:
Might, Agility, Wits, Ego

ModelCitizen wrote:I think the best stat list I've seen for a D&D clone is Virgil's four from Parabellum:

Strength
Dexterity
Cunning
Presence

I also like 4 stats, Strength, Agility, Mind, Spirit.

Why is everyone all upset at a stat that represents intelligence, but totally okay with having Strength and Dexterity.

It's a fantasy system. You could actually have:

Mind
Spirit
Soul
Arcana
efficiency coefficient

Which describes the spheres of magic that they can pull on, and have everything else skill based.

In a magical world, how strong or fast you are is not determined by your physical body, but by the strength of your magic.
You want to be a spear wielding agility move and maneuver character? that's fine. All of that is skills, talents, maneuvers, powers and spells.

An orc barbarian and an elf barbarian start looking different because of their starting packages.. but eventually they're both rage murderers who can hulk it up and wrestle dragons with their barehands.


A fighter would be someone who has a lot of skills and talents dealing with warfare, armor and weaponry. And it's easy to have them do high level play, because they're using magic, like everyone else.

I'm even less sure of the distinction between Mind, Spirit, and Soul than I am of the distinction between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Spirit: Spiritual Connection to the world. Allows you to draw magic from spiritual sources. Spirits, Elementals, etc
Soul: The magical strength of you. Drawing magic directly from yourself.
Mind: Yeah, I'm not entirely sure
Arcana: Your ability to draw magic from the physical environment.
Channeling (replaces coefficient) How efficiently you use the energy you're pulling from what ever source you're using.

Leress wrote:

if you wanted you could reduce the 6 to 3: body, mind, social(?); but that really confines things too much.

Not really BESM does Body, Mind, and Soul. That works well enough.

Bolshaya Elektronno-Schetnaya Mashina? wow, russian mainframes had great AI's in the 50s then.

how does this BESM compare in regards to level of potential depth that D&D has?

remember D&D tried to create 18 stats with sub-abilities in what later became 3rd, where they were used as a framework for the new saves, which equate to Mind, Body, and Soul...well Reflex and Fortitude are both body, so it always confuses me why have both? so i guess Willpower combines the idea of mind and soul...?

3 is the least i would say a system should have as the most talked about concepts that make up the body are: heart, mind, body, and soul.. and heart would be a bit weird to really add for an RPG unless it focus greatly on emotional stats.

Clearly, sabs, the stats should be:

Empathy
Hunger
Pride
Curiosity
Perversion

Because mixing ability scores, magic types, and alignments has got to be good.

Soda wrote:

Ice9 wrote:Incidentally, if I was talking about a D&D-esque fantasy RPG, I'd use:
Might, Agility, Wits, Ego

ModelCitizen wrote:I think the best stat list I've seen for a D&D clone is Virgil's four from Parabellum:

Strength
Dexterity
Cunning
Presence

I also like 4 stats, Strength, Agility, Mind, Spirit.

We keep coming up with the same four but with new synonyms or near-synonyms for the mental stats. Personally I'd call them Strength, Dexterity, Wits, Resolve. Kevin Sembieda would probably call them Physical Strength, Physical Agility, Mental Agility, Mental Strength.

ModelCitizen wrote:

Soda wrote:

Ice9 wrote:Incidentally, if I was talking about a D&D-esque fantasy RPG, I'd use:
Might, Agility, Wits, Ego

ModelCitizen wrote:I think the best stat list I've seen for a D&D clone is Virgil's four from Parabellum:

Strength
Dexterity
Cunning
Presence

I also like 4 stats, Strength, Agility, Mind, Spirit.

We keep coming up with the same four but with new synonyms or near-synonyms for the mental stats. Personally I'd call them Strength, Dexterity, Wits, Resolve. Kevin Sembieda would probably call them Physical Strength, Physical Agility, Mental Agility, Mental Strength.

Screw that, new set of stats:
Mohs Hardness
# Siblings that have reached child-bearing age
Pac-Man High Score
Favorite episode of Star Wars

How about:
Chest - Social skills, HP and Fort.
Arms - Object skills, ranged to hit and Damage.
Legs - Movement skills, melee to hit and AC.
Guts - Perception skills, Initiative and Reflex.
Brain - Knowledge skills, Crit chance and Will.

Why are Chest and Guts separate?

Mechanically, because giving Fort, Reflex and Init to the same attribute is overpowered.

Thematically, so that you can have a generous and noble hero with a big heart who is none the less naive and hasn't developed an instinct for danger.

Aryxbez wrote:

tussock wrote:Sacred Cows, man. Some shit's just got to be in the game if you want to sell it to people who enjoyed the last edition. Familiarity and stuff.

Bleh! for most part, I could care less for those, especially if it gets in the way of making a better Fantasy game. Thing is, pending who that is, they're probably not going to be terribly too interested in your product anyway, much with AD&D fans, Paizils, and 4rries (as we've denoted them anyway) are going to stick with their inferior products.

I think that's bullshit. For reals, no troll. 3e sold well in large part because it got the people who basically liked the idea of D&D but were fed up with the clunky mechanics and seriously bad attitude the 2nd edition DMG fostered in people.

Yeh, you can make a whole new game and hope someone cares, but including "every D&D player ever" in your potential market is a thing you cannot blithely ignore. It's just plain easier for your customers to read and understand, and in turn advertise to their friends, if you stick to the classic naming conventions.

It'd probably be better off for it as well, sacred cows shouldn't limit design nor exist just for sake of existing, especially when it has no merit.

If something core to the game isn't working, you fix it, you don't throw it out. Like, if you look at the development of early D&D, the first three stats (Str/Int/Wis) started out as nothing but an XP bonus for taking each class (Ftr/Wiz/Clr respectively). Later they were roped into powering up Fighters (see also: feats in 3e). Con and Dex also morphed into stealth powerups for Fighters. As did AD&D Weapon Proficiencies, and 3e Feats. Mental stats did similar things to casters in 3e.

Now that stats have decades of legacy power-ups stuck in them, they could use a clean-up, but you don't have to throw them out. The core principle, that Fighters are Strong and can throw more weight around, that Wizards are learned and can understand strange things, that all still has value.

Put the class powers in the class, it's fine. Attack bonuses should be level based. But that doesn't mean you throw out the stats.

Also, define to me what makes something D&D

"Feel." I believe, but cannot prove at all, that a lot of why 4e felt wrong was that the classic labels were applied to new things. Yes, it's a dull grind, but it lost a lot of people before they could even get that far into it.

Like, when 3e changed saves from "what the attack was" to "how you avoid it", they changed the names of them. That's fine, a change the critical mind can readily absorb.

When 4e changed the saves to "attacker rolls" and called them defences; and then stuck the suddenly unused word "saving throw" on a new concept of victim-rolled binomial durations, that's going to put people off. See?

with Con and Str being so obviously linked in monsters and most PCs as a "bulk size" thing, and bla bla bla.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your second comment with Str/Con linked to monsters, and PC "Bulk Size".

Str/Con are basically the same thing in 3e, bigger monsters and many PCs have lots of both. You totally don't need them both to make a game very much like 3e D&D.

Part of fixing them would be to further differentiate the two. Same for Int and Wis.

Alright, taking a bigger swing at D&D attributes.

• STR can stay associated with huge things and throwing mountains. Its bonus can be making Goku fly faster with Mount Everest, shoot bigger energy beams, and bounce bigger energy beams off of his pecs.
• DEX should be clarified as being about moving *right* more than simply moving fast, and can stay associated with dodging stuff, thievery, and using finesse weapons.
• Because we should have a chase minigame, we can use CON for chases, and assign large values in it to ultra-persistent predators like humans. Its bonus should be shrinking your penalties for long encounters and adventures.
• INT should be associated with memory and connecting memories. Its bonus should be knowing more trivia and memorizing things faster
• WIS should have its meaning clarified into awareness, and used for noticing things. Its bonus should be foiling more ambushes and cancelling more social gaffes.
• CHA should get working social mechanics for its 35th birthday. Its bonus should be that your minions work harder and the other side's minions are more likely to defect, whether to your side or just run away.

Core races under the new system:

• Human: +2 CON, Humans stick with things, and their attributes back them up.
• Elf: +2 DEX, Elves are graceful.
• Half-elf: +1 DEX +1 CON, Half-Elves blend elven grace and human endurance.
• Dwarf: +2 STR, Dwarves are as tough as stone.
• Halfling: +2 WIS, Halflings are very aware of what goes on around them, both socially and physically.
• Gnome: +2 INT, Gnomes may seem like dabblers to others, but they actually learn and understand the things they 'dabble' in much better than those unfamiliar with Gnomes might expect.
• Half-orc: +1 STR +1 CON, Half-Orcs blend the savage might of Orcs with the tenacity of Humans.
• Warforged: +2 STR +2 CON -2 WIS, robots are strong, tough, and rather untiring, but good sensors and social awareness are very hard to do.
• Planetouched: +2 CHA, minions are generally religious enough to suspect that something's up.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Alright, taking a bigger swing at D&D attributes.

• STR can stay associated with huge things and throwing mountains. Its bonus can be making Goku fly faster with Mount Everest, shoot bigger energy beams, and bounce bigger energy beams off of his pecs.
• DEX should be clarified as being about moving *right* more than simply moving fast, and can stay associated with dodging stuff, thievery, and using finesse weapons.
• Because we should have a chase minigame, we can use CON for chases, and assign large values in it to ultra-persistent predators like humans. Its bonus should be shrinking your penalties for long encounters and adventures.
• INT should be associated with memory and connecting memories. Its bonus should be knowing more trivia and memorizing things faster
• WIS should have its meaning clarified into awareness, and used for noticing things. Its bonus should be foiling more ambushes and cancelling more social gaffes.
• CHA should get working social mechanics for its 35th birthday. Its bonus should be that your minions work harder and the other side's minions are more likely to defect, whether to your side or just run away.

Dexterity (Dex) encompasses several physical attributes including hand-eye coordination, agility, reaction speed, reflexes, and balance.

Intelligence (Int) represents a character's memory, reasoning, and learning ability, including areas outside those measured by the written word.

Wisdom (Wis) describes a composite of the character's enlightenment, judgment, guile, willpower, common sense, and intuition.

The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character's persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

i dont understand your CON

those you speak of are pretty clear, but what exactly can you do with the mechanics? 35th birthday? CHA has been in since the game began being sold in 1974, 38 years ago. what should have happened on '09?

CHA has had social mechanics since AD&D. just roll the dice for your ability check to find out if what you are trying works or not.

shadzar wrote:i dont understand your CON

Basically, it's persistence; the ability to keep doing things, like dodging and running away.

those you speak of are pretty clear, but what exactly can you do with the mechanics? 35th birthday? CHA has been in since the game began being sold in 1974, 38 years ago. what should have happened on '09?

I was under the mistaken impression that the game started in 1978, not 1974. 35 was a nice round number that I thought was in the future, but soon. 40 is an even rounder number, so that's good too.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

shadzar wrote:i dont understand your CON

Basically, it's persistence; the ability to keep doing things, like dodging and running away.

aha like for lack of a better example. say a fighter encounter powers from 4th recharging each new encounter, but also like $ attacks then an option to flee, and refresh an attack and return...like i guess a monk bouncing around with attacks, then dodges, then more attacks after he gets in place again to make the best ones. is that about right?

or jsut disengaged an encounter and re-engage it rather than stay in it through the entire chase?

those you speak of are pretty clear, but what exactly can you do with the mechanics? 35th birthday? CHA has been in since the game began being sold in 1974, 38 years ago. what should have happened on '09?

I was under the mistaken impression that the game started in 1978, not 1974. 35 was a nice round number that I thought was in the future, but soon. 40 is an even rounder number, so that's good too.

Key dates in D&D history:
Chainmail 71
OD&D 74
Holmes Basic 77
AD&D MM 77
2nd edition AD&D 89
2nd revised 96
Wotc buys TSR 97
3rd 2000

it really does get confusing since they didnt print the books as real books with all the revision dates, but 1974 is considered the year D&D was born.

still what would really make CHA work is the $25ooo question?

shadzar wrote:

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

shadzar wrote:i dont understand your CON

Basically, it's persistence; the ability to keep doing things, like dodging and running away.

aha like for lack of a better example. say a fighter encounter powers from 4th recharging each new encounter, but also like $ attacks then an option to flee, and refresh an attack and return...like i guess a monk bouncing around with attacks, then dodges, then more attacks after he gets in place again to make the best ones. is that about right?

or jsut disengaged an encounter and re-engage it rather than stay in it through the entire chase?

Well, there's two parts here that are probably separate: The Chase, and Staying Power.

Staying Power would give you some combination of:

• More uses of, "encounter powers," between short rests
• More rounds of being in, "action mode," between short rests before you take fatigue penalties or just plain can't go into Action Mode. Action Mode would be used in most cases where one keeps track of individual rounds, and Action Mode might be required to use certain powers or abilities, like parrying and running and stuff. Actually, Action Mode could probably take over the role of fatigue (but see The Chase below).
• The ability to benefit from more short rests per day. (obviously, whenever the party rested, each player would have to choose whether or not to benefit from it) (not benefiting from short rests would mean you wouldn't recover things like "encounter powers" and "rounds of Action Mode") -- there might be 'partial benefit' that put you merely at reduced rather than zero benefit, insted of 'no benefit', so there's actually a feeling of characters being 'tired' rather than "this is when we all stop, because otherwise Bob will basically have to go of and play SSB."
• The ability to adventure more days in a row between downtime (penalty being that you would get reduced/no short rests per day until you took a long downtime (probably at least a week)

The Chase could run off of Action Mode, but we might also want a thing where creatures get even more tired and eventually just plain drop dead of exhaustion if it comes down to it.

Basically, in The Chase, you probably have abstract rounds in which each character can try some sort of maneuver to grow or shrink an abstract 'distance', that represents how close/far the hunters are to catching the quarry. Constitution lets you use your best powers/maneuvers more (even if those are just, "roll at +2 instead of -4").

I'm pretty sure I remember a cool chase mechanic in After Sundown.

still what would really make CHA work is the $25ooo question?

I don't know, but I was kind of thinking of having it benefit you in the kingdom-management minigame and hurt your enemies. Like, making speeches and convincing their people not to give it their all, or even to defect if the other guy's bad enough at it and they think they can get away with it.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

still what would really make CHA work is the $25ooo question?

I don't know, but I was kind of thinking of having it benefit you in the kingdom-management minigame and hurt your enemies. Like, making speeches and convincing their people not to give it their all, or even to defect if the other guy's bad enough at it and they think they can get away with it.

I'm thinking it might be a mistake to mix in social aspects with the combat game.

I'm not saying RPGs can't (or shouldn't) support both combat and social. But I *do* think the point pools should be different.

That way you'd be able to properly expand on social aspects with out ostracizing a hero's combat attributes. While also allowing for synergy between the two.

Although that makes me wonder whether 'stat attributes' should be their own "thing", or if they should just be highlighted feats, skills or traits.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Staying Power would give you some combination of:

• The ability to benefit from more short rests per day. (obviously, whenever the party rested, each player would have to choose whether or not to benefit from it) (not benefiting from short rests would mean you wouldn't recover things like "encounter powers" and "rounds of Action Mode") -- there might be 'partial benefit' that put you merely at reduced rather than zero benefit, insted of 'no benefit', so there's actually a feeling of characters being 'tired' rather than "this is when we all stop, because otherwise Bob will basically have to go of and play SSB."
• The ability to adventure more days in a row between downtime (penalty being that you would get reduced/no short rests per day until you took a long downtime (probably at least a week)

I'm not sure I like these two, why wouldn't they just lead to lowest con member of the party decides when we can adventure or not?

On a different note, is there any benefit in a stat being able to change the number of hitpoints you have? I can't think of a single one.

codeGlaze wrote:

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

still what would really make CHA work is the $25ooo question?

I don't know, but I was kind of thinking of having it benefit you in the kingdom-management minigame and hurt your enemies. Like, making speeches and convincing their people not to give it their all, or even to defect if the other guy's bad enough at it and they think they can get away with it.

I'm thinking it might be a mistake to mix in social aspects with the combat game.

I'm not saying RPGs can't (or shouldn't) support both combat and social. But I *do* think the point pools should be different.

That way you'd be able to properly expand on social aspects with out ostracizing a hero's combat attributes. While also allowing for synergy between the two.

Although that makes me wonder whether 'stat attributes' should be their own "thing", or if they should just be highlighted feats, skills or traits.

well originally there was nothing but stats to go on, and maybe the idea that they are too tight groups for things led to NWPs/skills, but still being based off stats they gave something else for outside of combat.

maybe that is my entire dislike of the idea of NWPs/skills, because they are just stat boosts and you make an ability check either way.

so if a system existed that didnt use stats for the other part, or was only VERY loosely based on them, so the stats still have a part in the entire game at least somewhat. seems more like the secondary skills that became Profession(______), and have a REAL profession system, but not as connected to level as adventurer class, or maybe as connected?

Fighter/Cook/6

the cabin boy that learned under the cook and had to later defeat him was still able to cook, but also became a fighter, so now Jim has something more than just a combat class but something else for society to interact with his cooking skills. (I ahve been watching too many pirates movies lately)

then no stats really work with the profession so they dont affect them?