PDA

View Full Version : Streamlined d20 Design Brainstorming [Please PEACH]



Ziegander
2011-11-01, 07:16 AM
Basic rule is, as normal, d20 + modifiers. Types of modifiers (bonuses & penalties) are drastically streamlined to 5 or 6 different types (circumstance, inherent, insight, item, and power). Modifiers of the same type never stack (except for maybe circumstance modifiers).

Players add +1 per even level to defenses, attack rolls, and skill rolls. In fact, if it's a d20 roll just assume you add this bonus to it (what type of modifier is this?).

Damage scales at the rate of one dice per odd character level (1d6 for light, 1d8 for medium, 1d10 for heavy; 1 dice at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 3 at 5th, etc).

So, at 20th level all characters have +10 to hit and deal 10d6 (or 10d8 or 10d10) damage before bonuses.

HD is also one of three dice (1d6 for frail, 1d8 for average, 1d10 for tough)? So a Wizard would get 1d6 hp per level, a Rogue would get 1d8 hp per level, and a Fighter would get 1d10 hp per level.

Attributes (instead of Ability Scores) are: Power, Agility, Savvy, and Mettle. Among other things, Power adds to damage rolls, Agility adds to initiative rolls, Savvy adds to skill rolls, and Mettle adds to hit points.

Defenses are Avoid and Resist. Armor class doesn't exist. If it's an attack that could potentially miss you it is aimed at your Avoid defense (like a claw swipe or a fireball). If it's an attack that can't miss but might not hurt you if you're tough enough it is aimed at your Resist defense (like a tidal wave or mind control). How are effects like Dragon's Breath handled?

Classes no longer have base attack bonus, saving throw progressions, or lists of class skills. They do still gain class features. Skill points per level is up in the air. Characters of any class may train with any skill they want. Exactly what skills exist and what they do is still up in the air.

Classes are divided into power source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc) and each power source has a list of powers assigned to it (arcane spells, divine prayers, martial feats). Classes of a given power source have access to the powers assigned to their power source (so Fighters and Rogues have different class features but both use martial feats in some way). Each power source operates very differently from one another so that casting spells is a separate subsystem from offering prayers is a different subsystem from executing feats.

Oh, and none of the 4e "every class ever has X at-wills, Y encounter, and Z daily powers," crap. Each subsystem has "powers" but exactly what the nature of those powers are and how they operate can and should vary wildly from one power source to the next.

Multiclassing works like it does in 3.5, you simply take levels in whatever classes you want (starting with 1st level). Because your attack bonus and damage scales independently of your class levels there is no need for the concept of "caster level" or "initiator level" and multiclassing becomes as simple as possible.

Powers increase in level at odd class level (power level 10 at class level 19th)? Or should this also be independent of class level but with increasing prerequisites for higher level powers based on specialization (like X Fire powers)?

Durations are fixed, not dependent on character level, and likely streamlined to a few basic types.

Talents granted at 2nd level and every even level thereafter (minor bonus type stuff akin to 4e feats with no prerequisites ever)?

How are natural ability score increases handled?

Ziegander
2011-11-01, 07:18 AM
Reserved post #1.

1) Items do not need to be magical to be effective. Alchemical items are a Big DealTM.

2) Items (even magical ones) are imminently craftable by all characters.

3) Each monster has a certain percentage chance to "drop" given items that vary from monster to monster.

4) Some monsters can effectively be "poached" for other special items (beast's flesh, goblin teeth, phoenix tears) useful for a variety of purposes (See Valkyrie Profile: Silmeria). While a Ranger might be better at this than other characters all classes will be able to do it. Some of these items may also have a percentage chance to be simply "dropped" by a monster, depending on the monster and the item.

5) The concept of wealth by level does not exist. Characters are not expected to have a certain amount of magical gear at any level of the game, and no amount of wealth in gold pieces is necessarily translatable to mechanical power. Sensible rules for in-game economics are a top priority.

Ziegander
2011-11-01, 07:19 AM
Reserved Post #2 (last one).

Ziegander
2011-11-02, 07:53 AM
Man, this is at least the second time I've tried to drum up a d20 design brainstorming thread here at GitP and both times I've gotten no response. Is there just no interest here in starting from scratch and trying to write a streamlined game?

Howler Dagger
2011-11-02, 07:59 AM
It sounds like a mix of both 4e and 3.5. Which is good, because many D&D revisioners refuse to look at 4e, even though there are vaaluable lessons to be leearned from there


Defenses are Avoid and Resist. Armor class doesn't exist. If it's an attack that could potentially miss you it is aimed at your Avoid defense (like a claw swipe or a fireball). If it's an attack that can't miss but might not hurt you if you're tough enough it is aimed at your Resist defense (like a tidal wave or mind control). How are effects like Dragon's Breath handled?

How about certain effects you can choose which one it effects? If your guys is a quick rogue, he would be more likely to dodge it than the muscular fighter who takes on enemies head-first. How about something like this:

A dragon's breath can be defended against either Avoid or Resist. If you succesfully negate the attack with your Avoid roll, you immediantly move to a location outside of the area of the dragon breath.

For skill points and stuff, lets say you have a limit of invested skill points of level+3. You could have trained skill are always considered to have ranks equal to your level +4

Ziegander
2011-11-02, 08:24 AM
It sounds like a mix of both 4e and 3.5. Which is good, because many D&D revisioners refuse to look at 4e, even though there are vaaluable lessons to be leearned from there

I agree. I don't like 4e nearly as much as I like 3.5, but the fact remains that 4e did do a lot of things well that most people just outright ignore. 4e streamlines a lot of mechanics and, if it weren't for flaws in other places of design, makes gameplay faster. Those are the sorts of ideas I want to use.

Take all the 4e design principles that make the game faster and easier to run and play, but leave all the 3.5 design principles that make the game a versatile, deep, and rewarding system with diverse classes and lots of options.


How about certain effects you can choose which one it effects? If your guys is a quick rogue, he would be more likely to dodge it than the muscular fighter who takes on enemies head-first.

I assume some effects will just default to attacking the higher of the defender's two defenses, but for something like Dragon's Breath, if you're in the area you can't just dodge it, and it really doesn't matter how tough you are it's going to burn you. That's the main problem really.


A dragon's breath can be defended against either Avoid or Resist. If you succesfully negate the attack with your Avoid roll, you immediantly move to a location outside of the area of the dragon breath.

That would make Avoid a strictly better defense than Resist.


For skill points and stuff, lets say you have a limit of invested skill points of level+3. You could have trained skill are always considered to have ranks equal to your level +4

Well, the big issue I always have with skills when I go to building a new d20 system is that both in 3.5 and 4e skills do essentially nothing useful. Perception is arguably useful in 4e, while Diplomacy and UMD are arguably broken in 3.5, but other than that skills are pretty pointless.

I'd like to come up with rules that make skills not pointless, but if I can't then I'd rather ditch the skill system entirely. Pointless baggage is the opposite of streamlined.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-11-02, 10:31 AM
Basic rule is, as normal, d20 + modifiers. Types of modifiers (bonuses & penalties) are drastically streamlined to 5 or 6 different types (circumstance, inherent, insight, item, and power). Modifiers of the same type never stack.

This works well, as in my mind most abilities should try to do things other than apply static bonuses and penalties, and having fewer of these to work with can increase creativity in other aspects of the game.


Players add +1 per even level to defenses, attack rolls, and skill rolls. In fact, if it's a d20 roll just assume you add this bonus to it (what type of modifier is this?).

4e did this, and it's very solid for gameplay, although it does completely neutralize the threat from a large number of lower-level opponents. That may not necessarily be a bad thing though, so I approve. If it's all d20 rolls, however, make sure you remember that if you use a d20 for anything else in the system, as you'll have to either account for it or make exceptions.


Damage scales at the rate of one dice per odd character level (1d6 for light, 1d8 for medium, 1d10 for heavy; 1 dice at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 3 at 5th, etc).

While I have always endorsed standardizing weapon damage based on proficiency (which is what I think you're doing here), this will get clunky fast. Rolling and adding ten dice every turn (more with multiple attacks) will bog down gameplay.


Defenses are Avoid and Resist. Armor class doesn't exist. If it's an attack that could potentially miss you it is aimed at your Avoid defense (like a claw swipe or a fireball). If it's an attack that can't miss but might not hurt you if you're tough enough it is aimed at your Resist defense (like a tidal wave or mind control). How are effects like Dragon's Breath handled?

I don't like this. I think this is an over-simplification of the defense rules, and also begs crazy questions: if I'm wearing heavy armor, why can't I Resist that sword swing rather than Avoid it? If I can, how is that fair to people who can't use Avoid against, say, the toxic mists?

In short, I think it's to few defenses. I'd be fine with Reflex, Will, and Fortitude with AC pulled into Reflex and armor granting either extra hit points or damage reduction, but I think at least three defenses are necessary to really differentiate character strengths and weaknesses, as well as to have a wide range of attack options.


Classes no longer have base attack bonus, saving throw progressions, or lists of class skills. They do still gain class features. Skill points per level is up in the air. Characters of any class may train with any skill they want. Exactly what skills exist and what they do is still up in the air.

Good. I approve.


Classes are divided into power source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc) and each power source has a list of powers assigned to it (arcane spells, divine prayers, martial feats). Classes of a given power source have access to the powers assigned to their power source (so Fighters and Rogues have different class features but both use martial feats in some way). Each power source operates very differently from one another so that casting spells is a separate subsystem from offering prayers is a different subsystem from executing feats.

...good in theory, but I'd have to see some concepts here before I make a call. I'm assuming there might be some class-specific feats/spells/powers/prayers though, as I'd personally expect that.


Oh, and none of the 4e "every class ever has X at-wills, Y encounter, and Z daily powers," crap. Each subsystem has "powers" but exactly what the nature of those powers are and how they operate can and should vary wildly from one power source to the next.

Again, I'd have to see examples. In concept it sounds great...but you'll have to make it work before I'll say it's good.


Multiclassing works like it does in 3.5, you simply take levels in whatever classes you want (starting with 1st level). Because your attack bonus and damage scales independently of your class levels there is no need for the concept of "caster level" or "initiator level" and multiclassing becomes as simple as possible.

Alright...but how will you work the power discrepancy that will undoubtedly arise from having a few classes's low-level class features vs. a single class's high level features?


Powers increase in level at odd class level (power level 10 at class level 19th)? Or should this also be independent of class level but with increasing prerequisites for higher level powers based on specialization (like X Fire powers)?

Power increase by class level messes with multiclassing. Requiring prerequisites results in an inability to generalize and forcing characters to take abilities they might not actually want. Perhaps a third option could be created here?


Durations are fixed, not dependent on character level, and likely streamlined to a few basic types.

Sounds decent.


Talents granted at 2nd level and every even level thereafter (minor bonus type stuff akin to 4e feats with no prerequisites ever)?

Sure. Why not start with a few at first level, though? Just to add customization.


How are natural ability score increases handled?

Counter-argument: are they even necessary?


1) Items do not need to be magical to be effective. Alchemical items are a Big DealTM.

And how are you going to make non-magical items effective? I'm all for it, but, again...examples.


2) Items (even magical ones) are imminently craftable by all characters.

Not sure I like this...it sacrifices realism and character individuality for balance purposes, but I'm not sure how good a trade that actually will end up being...


3) Each monster has a certain percentage chance to "drop" given items that vary from monster to monster.

4) Monsters can effectively be "poached" for other special items (beast's flesh, goblin teeth, phoenix tears) useful for a variety of purposes (See Valkyrie Profile: Silmeria). While a Ranger might be better at this than other characters all classes will be able to do it. Some of these items may also have a percentage chance to be simply "dropped" by a monster, depending on the monster and the item.

Ew. These feel very MMO to me, and I don't like the fact that, by the rules, I should have X% chance of getting Y...a meta-game result of this will be monster-farming, which no Role-playing game should have. I'm also not a fan of cutting up every monster for all the gold it's worth, as that breeds a very different sort of player from a game where that isn't the norm.

These are the two ideas I can say I loathe, plain and simple. I recommend that you remove them.


5) The concept of wealth by level does not exist. Characters are not expected to have a certain amount of magical gear at any level of the game, and no amount of wealth in gold pieces is necessarily translatable to mechanical power. Sensible rules for in-game economics are a top priority.

Good. Magic items and so forth should allow you to tackle monsters above your CR, but the CR system should be designed around a non-magic situation.

That said, this means that magic can't replicate existing powers and/or provide numerical bonuses, otherwise they WILL translate to mechanical power. I think you'll have to settle for less translation to mechanical power.

Rules for economics probably shouldn't be a top priority (most DMs I know handle them pretty well within the respective worlds if the players don't set out to try to break the economy), but it would be nice to see.

Howler Dagger
2011-11-02, 04:10 PM
I assume some effects will just default to attacking the higher of the defender's two defenses, but for something like Dragon's Breath, if you're in the area you can't just dodge it, and it really doesn't matter how tough you are it's going to burn you. That's the main problem really.

You could do something similar to avoid/resist for half damage. Though I do like Djinn's suggestion of keeping Fortitude, Reflex, and Will, they do the same thing as avoid and resist, but more people are familiar with them and thus will be more comfortable using them.

Another sentiment I agree with is the clunky damage idea. You could go +1dX at every 3 levels, so 1dX at level 1, 2dX at level 3, 3dX at level 6, etc. Jow far do you intend on having levels go up, ie, keep the 3.5 maximum of 20, or the 4e maximum of 30?

For naturability score increases, for your baseline, if you want to do them at all, you should start with the same method they use in 4e, 2 +1 at 4 level and every 4 levels beyond that.

Ziegander
2011-11-02, 05:28 PM
While I have always endorsed standardizing weapon damage based on proficiency (which is what I think you're doing here), this will get clunky fast. Rolling and adding ten dice every turn (more with multiple attacks) will bog down gameplay.

It's making sure that all characters deal level appropriate damage. It's personal preference, for sure, but I feel that most people would rather roll a fistful of dice than to get a large, flat bonus to damage. It's no different than a Rogue sneak attacking every round.


I don't like this. I think this is an over-simplification of the defense rules, and also begs crazy questions: if I'm wearing heavy armor, why can't I Resist that sword swing rather than Avoid it? If I can, how is that fair to people who can't use Avoid against, say, the toxic mists?

Armor will provide damage reduction, not a defense bonus. How do you resist being hit with a sword? If it hits you, you get hurt. How do you dodge being caught inside toxic mist? If you're in the area, you're exposed. I don't see it as an over-simplification.


In short, I think it's to few defenses. I'd be fine with Reflex, Will, and Fortitude with AC pulled into Reflex and armor granting either extra hit points or damage reduction, but I think at least three defenses are necessary to really differentiate character strengths and weaknesses, as well as to have a wide range of attack options.

I'm not completely opposed to using 4e's Fort, Ref, Will defenses, but, to explain, I consolidated Fort and Will into Resist because I felt that attacks vs Fortitude would be much rarer than attacks vs Will. It doesn't seem like a terrible thing to roll them together.


Alright...but how will you work the power discrepancy that will undoubtedly arise from having a few classes's low-level class features vs. a single class's high level features?

Not sure. If multiclassing isn't 100% perfect that's probably okay, because I'm confident it can be made MUCH better than either 3.5 or 4e's multiclassing.


Power increase by class level messes with multiclassing. Requiring prerequisites results in an inability to generalize and forcing characters to take abilities they might not actually want. Perhaps a third option could be created here?

Any suggestions?


Sure. Why not start with a few at first level, though? Just to add customization.

Sure, it's possible. I would want to playtest the basic rules before I made tweaks like this.


Counter-argument: are they even necessary?

Not really, no.


And how are you going to make non-magical items effective? I'm all for it, but, again...examples.

It's more about not requiring magic items to be effective. Of course, I would want to make masterwork-type crafting that's able to produce more interesting and effective items, not to mention a much more robust list of alchemical items.


Not sure I like this...it sacrifices realism and character individuality for balance purposes, but I'm not sure how good a trade that actually will end up being...

I don't see how it sacrifices anything, let alone realism and character individuality. I don't mean that all characters will automatically be potion-makers, wand-slingers, and magical blacksmiths. I mean that such abilities will be easily accessible to all characters should they choose them.


These feel very MMO to me, and I don't like the fact that, by the rules, I should have X% chance of getting Y...a meta-game result of this will be monster-farming, which no Role-playing game should have.

Just because they feel "MMO" to you doesn't mean it's unrealistic, meta-gamey, or anti-roleplaying. I'm not talking about stuff like Goblins wielding shortspears only having a 50% chance to drop a shortspear. I'm talking about a Chimera having a 10% chance to drop an Admixture Core, or something like that. It's LOADS faster than determining what type of treasure a creature should have and then rolling on the corresponding random treasure chart, and it's MUCH more flavorful. The DM will be free to assign additional equipment and treasure to creatures that they "just have."


I'm also not a fan of cutting up every monster for all the gold it's worth, as that breeds a very different sort of player from a game where that isn't the norm.

I feel like it's only realistic for a lot of creatures. It is an attempt to create rules for things like harvesting Unicorn horns and actually placing them in the game's economy rather than handwaving their existence. In fact, it is these sort of items that I aim to have a major role as important consumables and components for item creation.


That said, this means that magic can't replicate existing powers and/or provide numerical bonuses, otherwise they WILL translate to mechanical power. I think you'll have to settle for less translation to mechanical power.

Oh, definitely I aim to make wealth and magic items make up much less mechanical power.


Rules for economics probably shouldn't be a top priority (most DMs I know handle them pretty well within the respective worlds if the players don't set out to try to break the economy), but it would be nice to see.

Without a sensible economy or guidelines for what can be bought, traded, and sold, and how this all works out the game can become horribly unbalanced very quickly. Since I don't want a repeat of the Wish economy and magic-marts, I want to make sure that rules for the game's internal economy make sense and don't wreck the game itself. Gold pieces should not be an important part of a character's mechanical power.

Zeta Kai
2011-11-02, 08:35 PM
Well, the big issue I always have with skills when I go to building a new d20 system is that both in 3.5 and 4e skills do essentially nothing useful. Perception is arguably useful in 4e, while Diplomacy and UMD are arguably broken in 3.5, but other than that skills are pretty pointless.

I'd like to come up with rules that make skills not pointless, but if I can't then I'd rather ditch the skill system entirely. Pointless baggage is the opposite of streamlined.

See, I could not disagree more. I do find that some skills are much more useful than others, & I think that many skills should be lumped into others & otherwise combined, but I wouldn't say that any of them are useless. That sounds like a DM who lacks imagination, which is apparently not the case with you. Combining skills is a great way to give power to non-casters, as they tend to use skills more & never get enough skill points. I have a revised skill list around here somewhere that reduces them down to 18, which is half of the current 3E list.


Just because they feel "MMO" to you doesn't mean it's unrealistic, meta-gamey, or anti-roleplaying. I'm not talking about stuff like Goblins wielding shortspears only having a 50% chance to drop a shortspear. I'm talking about a Chimera having a 10% chance to drop an Admixture Core, or something like that. It's LOADS faster than determining what type of treasure a creature should have and then rolling on the corresponding random treasure chart, and it's MUCH more flavorful. The DM will be free to assign additional equipment and treasure to creatures that they "just have."

This sounds very game-y to me as well, & I don't think it fits the d20 system very well. Your examples already show the primary flaw; if a goblin has a spear, & I kill it, why does it only have a 50% drop rate for a Goblin Spear? Where does the spear go half the time? And don't say that they get broken in battle that often, 'cause I don't buy that for a second. Are you telling me that goblins built such substandard spear that they break half the time in a 12-second battle? Spears that they literally depend on in a life-or-death situation?

And let's say that you can somehow argue that, this concept is a slippery slope that quickly leads to even more absurd scenarios. Like what about the common WOW situation of having to gather wolf pelts to prove your kills (a standard use of farming). Even if the drop rate is over 90%, where do the other pelts go? Are they somehow ruined? Did I "ruin" that wolf pelt when I killed it, to the point where a taxidermist couldn't use it? This gets even worse is other drop ideas, like spider legs & dragon teeth. So I slaughter a nest of spiders, & each one only has one leg? And that dragon only had one usable tooth?

Also, this randomness ignores what might have happened in the actual battle. Did I kill the wolf with a fireball? Okay, maybe that should have ruined the pelt, but the dice say that the drop was fine. Did I fell the goblin with a sneak attack? Sorry, even though you plunged your kukri precisely between his ribs & pierced his poor pathetic heart like a sniper's bullet with a medical degree, you still ruined his spear in the process, according to the loot roll. This mechanic is guaranteed to spit out ludicrous results on a regular basis, & it takes control away from the DM to do so.

Bad idea, bad design, do not want.

Ziegander
2011-11-02, 08:49 PM
This sounds very game-y to me as well, & I don't think it fits the d20 system very well. Your examples already show the primary flaw; if a goblin has a spear, & I kill it, why does it only have a 50% drop rate for a Goblin Spear? Where does the spear go half the time? And don't say that they get broken in battle that often, 'cause I don't buy that for a second. Are you telling me that goblins built such substandard spear that they break half the time in a 12-second battle? Spears that they literally depend on in a life-or-death situation?

I specifically said that's not what I'm talking about. The default Goblin will not have a spear. If the DM gives it a spear, then it always drops the spear.


And let's say that you can somehow argue that, this concept is a slippery slope that quickly leads to even more absurd scenarios. Like what about the common WOW situation of having to gather wolf pelts to prove your kills (a standard use of farming). Even if the drop rate is over 90%, where do the other pelts go? Are they somehow ruined? Did I "ruin" that wolf pelt when I killed it, to the point where a taxidermist couldn't use it? This gets even worse is other drop ideas, like spider legs & dragon teeth. So I slaughter a nest of spiders, & each one only has one leg? And that dragon only had one usable tooth?

You are viewing the idea as "video game-y" and automatically assuming that I'm going to implement it as poorly as an MMO. A wolf always has skin and fur, therefore, if a player wants to skin a wolf to obtain a wolf pelt they don't have to roll a percent chance to see if the wolf "drops" its pelt. They would probably roll some kind of skill check.

Harvesting actual parts of monsters is more along the lines of poaching. It's a skill, not a probability.

The "drop rate" stuff I'm talking about is just a replacement for treasure generation and represents certain items that all creatures of a given variety may or may not have. That's why you roll a percentage to see if it the creature does. A Chimera always has claws, teeth, three heads, etc, etc. I'm explicitly NOT talking about the Chimera randomly dropping any of the stuff that it always has. Any given Chimera may not have an Admixture Core. Then again it may. Roll percentage. Great.

Drop rates and "poaching" I see as MUCH better alternatives than having creatures randomly carry around coinage and artwork and other crap they don't care about and can't use. Not only does it make more sense, but it's much faster than either 3.5s or 4Es treasure systems.

Zeta Kai
2011-11-02, 09:10 PM
I will parrot DiT's sentiment & reserve judgment until I see some examples, but I am... skeptical of such a system, to say the least. Gamers of all stripes have been burned many times over, so don't be surprised to see resistance to an idea that you are attempting to salvage; if you do, then you will likely be the first to get it right. No pressure.

Also, I found that reduced skill list that I was talking about. Feel free to use it, or modify it, or whatever. I use it in my games, & it greatly improves efficiency & effectiveness, especially for the non-casters.
Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)

Draz74
2011-11-03, 02:32 AM
Man, this is at least the second time I've tried to drum up a d20 design brainstorming thread here at GitP and both times I've gotten no response. Is there just no interest here in starting from scratch and trying to write a streamlined game?
Certainly I'm interested in a streamlined d20 system that "starts from scratch." However, I've already been working on one for years (and while it's slow going, I'm very happy with how some aspects are working out), and I doubt you want to read a string of in-depth comments on your ideas that are basically just: "I like this idea. My system does that too. I don't like this idea. You should do it this way, like my system does." :smallwink:

If it helps, though, I never could drum up much feedback on this Forum either. I think it's just a somewhat innately individual process. You could try posting on Fax Competitor, though ... it used to be a little better about this sort of thing. Though it may be dying a slow death (especially since the hurricanes a couple months ago put the site's server down for long time).


Durations are fixed, not dependent on character level, and likely streamlined to a few basic types.
Out of your various ideas, this is one of the ones that makes me go, "This, yes. YES. So much YES." Any streamlined tabletop game MUST get rid of the need to keep track of a gazillion effects' durations round-by-round. Save that stuff for games that computers are running.


It's making sure that all characters deal level appropriate damage. It's personal preference, for sure, but I feel that most people would rather roll a fistful of dice than to get a large, flat bonus to damage. It's no different than a Rogue sneak attacking every round.
Well, it's different in at least one significant way: d6's are a lot more common and easy to find/buy than d8s or d10s. Several of my gaming groups have had buckets of spare d6s lying around, but would have trouble gathering up 5d8 for each player.


See, I could not disagree more. I do find that some skills are much more useful than others, & I think that many skills should be lumped into others & otherwise combined, but I wouldn't say that any of them are useless. That sounds like a DM who lacks imagination, which is apparently not the case with you.
I generally agree; skills are an important part of a character for me. Most of the characters I design are pretty skilled, and the DMs I like to play under give uses to those skills.


Combining skills is a great way to give power to non-casters, as they tend to use skills more & never get enough skill points. I have a revised skill list around here somewhere that reduces them down to 18, which is half of the current 3E list.
My system has 10. :smallbiggrin:
Athletics - let's face it, dividing acrobatics and athletics really is a gaming construct more than something realistic. A really good gymnast has to be strong and in fantastic shape. So this skill -- with the right Talents to represent training and specialization in specific areas -- represents jumping, climbing, running, swimming, acrobatic stunts, and maybe sometimes balancing or escape artistry.
Brawn - Since my system doesn't have ability scores anymore, Strength-based stuff like carrying capacity, lifting portcullises, and arm wrestling gets put under this skill.
Charisma - Personal presence and leadership potential. This skill is NOT used for lying or sweet-talking someone you just met into liking you. It can be used for persuasion, but mostly in situations where someone is calmly listening to you making a sincere argument that depends more on logic than on wordplay. More often, it is used to develop long-term loyalty in one's followers or employees, or to be an inspirational presence on the battlefield. It's also the skill that the gods care about when divine spellcasters are concerned.
Dexterity - Has nothing to do with full-body agility. Governs tasks like lockpicking, pocket picking, whittling, surgery, piano playing. Also useful for making steady attacks (with light or ranged weapons).
Gadgetry - Absorbs most functions of Craft skills, as well as Disable Device, Appraise, Use Rope, and whatever else deals basically with being "handy" with physical objects.
Glibness - Here's where lying or fast-talking comes into play. Also useful for wittiness and/or innuendo, which can come in very handy when performing.
Knowledge - ... this skill does a lot of different things, really, but you can probably get the idea without me having to explain it much.
Nature - Survival, Handle Animal, and related tasks.
Perception - Spot, Listen, and sometimes Search and Sense Motive.
Stealth - Hide, Move Silently, Disguise, etc.

Ziegander
2011-11-03, 09:28 AM
I will continue to consider skills and skill points, etc. Thank you both for posting up your own lists of consolidated skills. I understand that skill checks are important at low levels and go a long way toward establishing the identity of a character, but it's been my experience that after the first several levels of the game, beyond skills like escape artist, hide, listen, move silently, open lock, search (ubiquitous but not really important), tumble, and UMD, other skills are no longer used for anything important.

How have other skills been used at mid to high levels in your games and how might I change the game so that more skills are more relevant throughout mid to high levels?

Draz, you make a good point about the sheer number of d8s and d10s players are likely to have. My table always had access to myriad dice of all types, but that isn't always the case, you're right. I'm inclined to keep the damage mechanic as it stands at the moment for the sake of game balance, but I'll look into alternatives.

The more I think about "drop rates" and "poaching" the more I think it's really all just poaching. Certain monsters will always have something you can poach from them if you want to bother, certain monsters will only have a percentage chance to have something you can poach from them. Those percentage chance ones are invariably the "rare items" that you're really going to want.

Howler Dagger
2011-11-03, 09:42 AM
What I dont get is the "Wow, it is has barest of hints of being simiilar to an MMO, so we arent allowed to discuss the possiblity of maybe thinking about the concept of attempting to put forward the idea that would allow the discussion of the thought of thinking about it while making an RPG"

Just because It looks like it may have been inspired by an MMO, doesnt mean it is the plague. Learn, not shun.

We could have different classes have damage progressions, for example the fighter would have his damage dice increase faster than, say a rogue. I remember seeing a homebrew idea by seerow where you coulld sacrifice strength bonus to damage to increace you damage, which is what we could do here.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-11-03, 10:03 AM
What I dont get is the "Wow, it is has barest of hints of being simiilar to an MMO, so we arent allowed to discuss the possiblity of maybe thinking about the concept of attempting to put forward the idea that would allow the discussion of the thought of thinking about it while making an RPG"

Just because It looks like it may have been inspired by an MMO, doesnt mean it is the plague. Learn, not shun.


You'll notice that my critique wasn't just "it's like an MMO." I like several MMOs very much. My argument came from the angle that, since it's an MMO-like mechanic, in this particular realm (treasure) it could create an unwanted MMO-like "monster-farming" situation. That's an aspect of MMOs that I don't feel belongs in a P&PRPG, so I commented on that specifically.

SamBurke
2011-11-03, 10:11 AM
I like this, I like it a lot. But there's a problem:

You want it to work well with 3.5's depth. Good. But HOW? How do you translate a class with a vast amount of various things to this? (other than saves, and BAB, etc, etc). How would their class features come to Streamlined d20?

Also, if you keep the class features as-is, there is now a mega-discrepancy between martial and magical, just as there normally is.

MAY IT NEVER BE! I hope this fix fixes fighters. I do. I know you want to...:smallwink:

Ziegander
2011-11-03, 10:22 AM
Also, if you keep the class features as-is, there is now a mega-discrepancy between martial and magical, just as there normally is.

Not to worry, this thread is merely about brainstorming concepts. No actual game mechanics from 3.5 or 4E are being used (other than 4E's add half level to everything).

SamBurke
2011-11-03, 11:26 AM
So how would you adapt 3.5's "depth" (IE, buttload of classes, feats, spells, and stuff) to this, then?

Ziegander
2011-11-03, 12:31 PM
So how would you adapt 3.5's "depth" (IE, buttload of classes, feats, spells, and stuff) to this, then?

By creating LOADS of useful options in the form of powers, feats, and items.

SamBurke
2011-11-03, 12:54 PM
By creating LOADS of useful options in the form of powers, feats, and items.

If you can create enough to counter-balance 90+ Splatbooks, I will call you something so amazing you can't help but sig it. /sarcasm.

That's a good idea, actually: create a system and release splatbooks (for cheep? Free?) as expansions of it to keep up interest.

Ziegander
2011-11-03, 01:02 PM
That's a good idea, actually: create a system and release splatbooks (for cheep? Free?) as expansions of it to keep up interest.

Well, that's how D&D 3.5 did it after all.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 07:12 AM
Having cut the defenses down to two, I think it's also appropriate to simplify the ability scores. For now I'm going with four scores, rather than six, as follows:

Power, Agility, Savvy, and Mettle. Among other things, Power adds to damage rolls, Agility adds to initiative rolls, Savvy adds to skill rolls, and Mettle adds to hit points.

Anyway, aside from the item stuff that's about as controversial as I expected, do you guys think that the core mechanics here are worth exploring?

Knaight
2011-11-05, 08:10 AM
Man, this is at least the second time I've tried to drum up a d20 design brainstorming thread here at GitP and both times I've gotten no response. Is there just no interest here in starting from scratch and trying to write a streamlined game?

There's plenty of interest. Its just that small games are easier to make either on your own or with a handful of people, not by forum. Plus, that whole d20 prerequisite is a bit of a turn off for some.

Zeta Kai
2011-11-05, 09:36 AM
Power, Agility, Savvy, and Mettle. Among other things, Power adds to damage rolls, Agility adds to initiative rolls, Savvy adds to skill rolls, and Mettle adds to hit points.

You could make a cute acronym for your ability scores, like Fallout does with its SPECIAL system. For yours, how about MAPS? You could tie it into your mechanics by saying that Mettle "maps" to hit points, & Power "maps" to damage rolls.

Also, Knaight has a point about the 20-sided die. This RPS isn't even remotely like the standard d20 system, which will lead to some confusion regarding your system, & set up expectations that this cannot live up to. You should consider using another die for your roles, & perhaps another rolling mechanic altogether. People tend to have many more d6s lying around, so maybe a 3d6-based mechanic would be better for your system. It has a nice bell curve of probability, which is more realistic & easier to account for when designing challenges.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 12:41 PM
You could make a cute acronym for your ability scores, like Fallout does with its SPECIAL system. For yours, how about MAPS? You could tie it into your mechanics by saying that Mettle "maps" to hit points, & Power "maps" to damage rolls.

Heh. I may, but then I'd be tempted to call the whole game MAPS RPG and throw in MAPS references. It could get ugly. :smallredface:


Also, Knaight has a point about the 20-sided die. This RPS isn't even remotely like the standard d20 system, which will lead to some confusion regarding your system, & set up expectations that this cannot live up to.

I don't know that I'd call it not remotely like d20. Though, I guess I get what you're saying. 4E isn't of the d20 game design blanket and neither would this be.


You should consider using another die for your roles, & perhaps another rolling mechanic altogether. People tend to have many more d6s lying around, so maybe a 3d6-based mechanic would be better for your system. It has a nice bell curve of probability, which is more realistic & easier to account for when designing challenges.

I'll consider it, but I like the 20-sided die for the simple fact that each side represents a 5% probability. It's clean and easy to do the math for.

SamBurke
2011-11-05, 10:28 PM
I'll consider it, but I like the 20-sided die for the simple fact that each side represents a 5% probability. It's clean and easy to do the math for.

d10 would be easier for most people, and two can also work as a percentage dice. Just saying'.

EDIT: Stupid spell checker.

Draz74
2011-11-06, 08:09 PM
You could make a cute acronym for your ability scores, like Fallout does with its SPECIAL system. For yours, how about MAPS?

Or SPAM? :smallwink:

Zeta Kai
2011-11-06, 08:18 PM
Or SPAM? :smallwink:

Yeah, I was kinda avoiding that one, but there you go.