Blame the Mesopotamians

Formatting: Agreed. Good suggestion about the abilities. I am going to do some major formatting near the end. However, I've just kept things simple now so it's easy to move about.

d20 skills: Disagreed. No, I think skills work better being different than a role to hit. The d4* (nice, I might use that) is nonlinear. I think it feels like proficiency in something. There's consistency, which creates some reliability, but things can go wrong. -Or very right every once in a while. The curviness is good. And, as I've said, I think a d20 with a +14 is retarded.

As for initiative, it could go d20. I'll think on that. -It might be worth doing.

As for rolling more than just a d20, -I think it's not too much to ask. I'm not going to start making weapons and spells do d20 based damage.

Finally, you can blame the Mesopotamians for Namtar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namtar

It'll be the first one cut when I get the list done.

EDIT: Actually, now saves are exactly the same as attacking.

For Matt

Wait, now prof checks and saves are just completely different from attacking? That's weird dude... breaks the system coherence. You're really going for 1E flavor, where different mechanistic aspects are all handled totally separately, without relation to each other. Initiative is d10, combat is d20, skills are d4*. (* = explosive. That's my own notation, made up on the spot. Feel free to use.)

Sorry, why don't you like d20 for skills, plus your skill level in the skill? (I.e., the 3E system.) It's really the most intuitive and straightforward.

...

The next big thing is formatting.

Page breaks dude. All about page breaks. Sections hanging off onto the top of the next page is tacky. It's like having your fly down.

Sections and Tables. Number 'em.

Clarity is god. The ability reference list, for example, should have one ability per line. Use the extra space on the right (the previous second column) for a five-ish word phrase summarizing the game mechanic of the ability. Super, super useful that way.

And Namtar, dude? Namtar? I think every bad comic book has a rodent disease master named Namtar. He was a genetically-enhanced rat mad scientist from Farscape. Might as well have a bunch of 9th circle spells by the arch mega wizard KRAM.

Excuse me: KHRAM.

Chummers.

I just made myself laugh out loud.

PC: Player chummer.
NPC: Non-player chummer.

Mark: The problem, chummer.

One problem with Shadowrun was that you were looking for successes, not a total sum. "Like: You need three 8's to crack that ice chummer."

God, I should just use 'chummer' in this system. -It's so awesome.

The second problem was that you were rolling tons of d6's, and got a pretty flat result. Not too much variation.

That being said, I know what you are saying. At first, when I came up with this, I thought the same thing: "That's a lot of exploding d4's." But then when I tried it, I realized it wasn't so many after all.

Each die has a 25% chance of exploding. Even when you roll 5 dice, you typically are just re-rolling one or two d4's. -It's over surprisingly fast. And, unlike Shadowrun, you never get beyond 5 dice. Chummer, I remember using both hands to roll something like 12 d6's.

Anyway, I started re-editing the system with this mechanic, and everything suddenly got really easy to write. In fact, some skills and spells make a lot more sense. Some shit was very contorted before. Also, the fortitude and willpower change made it much easier. This is pretty satisfying. I haven't dropped the old, but I am going through the whole thing to see how this pans out.

It's so nice when a spell can give: "+1 to dodge, fortitude, initiative, and basket-weaving", rather than: "+1 to dodge, -1 to fortitude, +1 to initiative, and -1 to basket-weaving".

One nice additional thing, was that I made all the attribute bonus/penalty tables uniform. There's no good reason not to.

SRSLY, roll some d4's chummer. Here's a site to do it: http://rpg.norwinter.com/konkret/

You've got a target number of 10 to crack that ice, chummer. Corps are already through the first perimeter...

Rob

Dude, that's Shadowrun, but on crack. Shadowrun had d6s, number of dice was equal to your skill level. 6s explode. With d4s it's even more hectic.

Let's try out a few things in Portland. I'll pack some dice if I can remember.

...

Where you stand right now (i.e., the system as currently written up, not this d4 business) is the fundamental mechanics of 2nd Ed D&D. Rolling high to hit/save, rolling low for checks.

One alternative solution, where you want to roll high for everything, is 3rd Ed D&D, where putting points into a skill gives you an add. Sorta like Tunnels and Trolls (except T&T didn't have skills), which is why you hate it- both games end up being about crazy adds, whereas you like rolling lots of dice.

I'm not sure there's a great solution to this, where you want to put points in something but still roll high.

The other alternative is to always try to roll low, and then you get to the mindfuck situation where +1 is worse than -1.

Not sure you can be consistent here.

...

I forget what the exact problem with Shadowrun was. Actually, this is also Vampire (but Vampire and Werewolf use d10s), especially with your 5 pt cap.

Let's call it "d4 Vampires"!

Mark: a possible overhaul.

So, Dave's beef with the system has always bothered me. That is, that you sometimes want to roll high, and sometimes you want to roll low.

In the system as it stands, for proficiencies and willpower/fortitude checks, you want to roll low. I think I've come up with a solution. I'd like to know what you think.

For proficiency skills:

Proficiency skills can be bought, rated 0-5. 0 means you haven't bought the proficiency.

0 means you roll 1d4 when you make a skill check.
1 means you roll 1d4 when you make a skill check, but 4's explode (you roll them over, adding the result to 4, ad infinitum)
2 means you roll 2d4 when you make a skill check, 4's explode.
3 means you roll 3d4 when you make a skill check, 4's explode.
4 means you roll 4d4 when you make a skill check, 4's explode.
5 means you roll 5d4 when you make a skill check, 4's explode.

Similar to 3Ed D&D, each check is given a target number by the DM.
The basic structure is: 4-simple, 8-average, 12-involved, 16-difficult, 20-improbable, 24-impossible.

I ran some tests. These are the results:


















Now attributes would simple give modifiers to related proficiencies. For example, a 16 agility might give +2 to all agility-related proficiency rolls. -That's applied to the final result.

I kind of like the exploding die thing, and I think skill attempts being non-linear gives a better feel. It's very unlikely a character with a 1 rating could do the impossible, but it could happen. Conversely, a character with a 5 rating could feasibly fuck up on an average attempt, but never on a simple one. -I think the non-linear aspect, as well as the reasonable target numbers (that everyone has a chance to reach), make it an improvement over 3ED D&D.

Proficiency skill ratings would be bought with proficiency skill points. Fishing might be 1 for 1, whereas extraplanar knowledge might be 5 for 1.

For Fortitude and Willpower checks:

These would be changed to target numbers 1-20ish. Your intellect-endurance average would compute your willpower modifier (+1, +2, etc.). Your strength-endurance would compute your fortitude modifier.

Target numbers would now be based on what you were resisting, rolling a d20. A first circle spell would likely be target 11. 2nd circle would be 12, etc...

I think this makes more sense. Your ability to resist something should have something to do with yourself (your modifier), but much more to do with the thing being resisted.

Comment:

I hate to fix so much so late, but I think this makes things much nicer. Also, positive modifiers are always good, and negative modifiers are always bad.

I think Dave will be happy too.

Mark

Ok. Sounds good.

Just posted version 5.2. Finished 80 artifacts or so. Cleaned some things up a bit.

When all is said and done, I want to spend some serious time on flavor. Things like discussion of spell acquisition, even world-building.

Rob

Ya, but not for a while. Busy here. Maybe we can discuss in Portland in a few weeks.

And so it goes...

Yes, I am still plugging away.

I've just about finished the Artifacts section. Next is to create a list of example Relics.
These are priest-made magic items: Holy, Unholy, Tellurgic and Vatic. Any suggestions?

Are you still game for an example of play, Rob? -I think your writing is stronger in that department.