| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 14:06:45
What might a roleplaying game custom-designed for the Realms look like? What kind of rules? How would it present and organize itself? Summarize and introduce the world? What should it leave out, bring in, refocus on? Which D&Disms have been naturalized into the setting, and which aren't really in tune with it? What kind of art, layout and physical format? To avoid edition-wrangling, let's consider different approaches on their own merits.
1. A game based on how Ed's campaign works, and how he crafts rules as in the 1990s sourcebooks, most similar to AD&D 2nd edition, but following the roleplaying-over-rules style described in Ed's early Dragon articles ("Players don't need to know all the rules", etc.) and elsewhere. (A big reason there isn't yet a 2E simulacrum game/retro-clone is that that edition didn't have a strong or rigid core ethos, but different implementations based on settings, the PHBR/DMGR series or Player's/DM's Option.)
2. Similar ethos to that, but with mechanics designed from scratch to represent the Realms. Perhaps with influence from indie RPGs of the last decade or two.
3. A Realms-customized 3E/Pathfinder, heavier on rules than 1 and 2 (with feats, for instance).
And any other approaches you'd like.
One of the big gaps between the Realms and any version of D&D is its magic, which is somewhat different and much more complex. Some aspects have been covered in scattered lore, others just hinted at, for various reasons. I'd personally prefer not to micromanage that complexity in rules, but on the other hand one can also imagine a whole magical subgame. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 23:59:34
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I think one of the biggest questions to all of this comes down to "will the game be human created character sheets and human dice rolling/figuring out each step OR will the game have a program that helps create character sheet and a program that helps manage combat rounds".
You're talking about something akin to D&D Beyond where the dice rolling and character options are digitally displayed and upkept on devices? So as someone who runs a weekly Discord game (I get a few ppl that come over in person, thankfully) and they all use D&D Beyond for their characters, I really don't think it's great. Yes, I do have D&D Beyond but I find that it's not all that helpful and I end jp just writing it down anyways. From loss of HP and resources spent to homebrewed content like spells and items. I just don't feel like basic-coding just to see my work fancy displayed on a screen.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
A lot of the problems come down to hours being spent managing a few rounds of combat. I've yet to play a game where the computer handle all the combat for an entire group (that being said, I have played MMORPG's... and that's very similar), but I know its available. Part of the problem with most MMORPGs is that they specifically hide the mechanics from most players AND they are typically built on a leveling scale that makes a character quickly become untouchable by lower level creatures.... and that revolves around the fact that they want to hook a person into playing this game nonstop. Not sure where the solution is here.
Well, I think the first issue to deal with is the fact that games like that are entirely centered around combat. I think it's fair to say that there's zero shortage of RPGs (and MMORPGs) that cater to people who love delving into the think of combat. However, there should be more to that. I'm not suggesting it becomes like a SIMS, but centering stories and campaigns around people and struggles they're going though - that can be tackled a myriad of ways besides combat is a key component here and might attract people who want more balance to their games.
Think of D&D and how it evolved from 1e/2e from the player's perspective. In 3e, there were lots of rules for things like running and building keeps (Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) and running a war campaign (Heroes of Battle) but the VAST majority of best sellers for that system were books that amped up player power, player options, and combinations for combat. 4E simply kept that trend going. 5e took a small step back, but I still find that the biggest sellers of their catalogue are Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron, which have the most player-driven material.
So if you were to take OUT the focus that is primarily on combat, put focus on player agency into other areas and make those other areas appealing, I think you'll see players stop treating every single obstacle as a nail to be beaten and their character as the hammer.
Yes, if less TIME can be focused on combat. To note, I'm not pushing for less rules surrounding combat... just some method to speed it up. I foresee that with computers involved so that everyone isn't finding out their target, finding out its AC, rolling each and checking each thing, etc.... Instead its "I dual wield and attack monster X until its dead, and if it dies I turn to monster Y". Then you actually have time to focus on riddles, roleplaying, etc.... I've never used D&D beyond, so I can't say how helpful it is one way or another. I have used MMORPG's where you attack a creature, but those also aren't turn based. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 22:22:52
I think the important thing in an RPG system is that the rules are consistent with the kind of stories you want to tell. In high fantasy, a fighter as powerful as Drizzt should be able to destroy whole armies even if that wouldn’t make sense in the real world (whether it would be fun to play such a character is a different question altogether). But consider an elf who has spent his first century learning everything he could about his own culture doing a history check to study an elven ruin. In D&D5, 1/3 of the time, he’d be better off asking the five brutes who came with him for escorts, and that feels wrong to the character, and this kind of things is why I hate the current skill system. I think it’s telling that few of the Forgotten Realms novels seem to follow the rules: mages always have the spell they need prepared, success and failure is more about what is interesting narratively than a roll of the dice, classes are not race-restricted the way it would be in the corresponding source book, characters can use skills beyond their level at the climax, even though it might come at a cost for them…
To me, these things are better than any past D&D ruleset, which keep taking me out of the game. I like the Forgotten Realms for the depth of the setting, which makes me want to explore it. The current rules on the other hand are made to guide the game toward combat (and as Gary mentions, combat takes far too long). But maybe that’s just my expectations, that what I want from an RPG is something akin to what Gary describes with the rule system he’s building. That is not necessarily everyone’s Realms. I’d say there are three things in the FR that can feel like the FR:
- Playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms. Then, obviously, playing D&D 5E should manage to get you close enough to that experience.
- The novels: would the game system let you have adventures similar to what is told in those stories? I know some authors do try to go for the feeling of playing D&D (Crypt of the Shadowking for instance really felt like a D&D campaign), others don’t bother (or somebody needs to tell Salvatore that his dice may not be perfectly balanced…). I feel like the best authors are those who follow the lore closely, but don’t let the rules diminish their stories. I’d like rules that would let me do the same when I play.
- The sourcebooks: you’d think that the crunch in the sourcebooks would be self-consistent. But how could the Forgotten Realms have so many powerful characters in first edition? How did all those magic users survive long enough to become so powerful? The rules should make the world as it is possible. Otherwise, the world will have imploded long before the PC are powerful enough to do anything about it. Thinking this way, it seems that we should want to make it easy to reach mid-level, and the game should implement reasons why so few of the movers and shakers of the Realms actually move and shake once in a while.
Regarding actual crunch, I think that without D&D Beyond like software, the rules need to be simple for the game to remain playable, and even with such software, the rules should be simple enough to actually code a tool that works, which is not the case with D&D Beyond (if I need to keep track of all my traits, even those I didn’t homebrew, then what’s the point of the software?).
I wonder how alignment should be handled. The way it has been implemented before (that character whose views represents the author’s is good, this whole species is evil and should be genocided…) is awful. But alignment is highly present in the lore through the planes and the gods, and I think it is interesting to have an alignment to represent the pull of the planes on any creature, as long as this is not the sole element that would decide a given creature’s behaviour.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 21:43:58
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Sounds awesome.
You let me know when / what you need and I can sort it.
I'll send you a PM  |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 19:33:58
Always looking for any help of any kind.
Anything you want to do in particular? |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 19:28:04
My group has disbanded, so I cannot help with play testing. I can (hopefully) help with other stuff. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 18:59:08
Sounds awesome.
You let me know when / what you need and I can sort it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 18:54:10
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
If anyone is interested, I'm always looking for an extra pair of brain cells to help with stuff, or a playtester or two.
Well I like learning new systems! When my main group can't get together a few of us turn to HeroQuest for a fix, but I can certainly try some playtesting for you. Take notes on the players imput, give some feedback if you want. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 18:50:29
Every round you get fatigue back equal to your highest attribute +1.
That ensures characters are always able to perform an action every round even if its only moving.
I don't do the resource loss over time, so at the end of each scene, all resources are restored back to origin.
The only exception is conditions (bad ones), they are not removed except by resting and using skills or magic to try and get rid of them.
That is for my system however, where a round lasts as long as people want. You take your turn on your fatigue score and can perform 1 manoeuvre only. The count keeps going up and everyone keeps taking turns on their fatigue score (which goes up as you perform manoeuvres and get damaged). Until everyone says they are done.
To make things more asynchronous I have a concept of triggers (like opportunities) which allow you to perform manoeuvres when other people fire your trigger by performing other manoeuvres on their turn.
You can acquire triggers via feats and they can be for just about anything. So performing a movement manoeuvre when someone else attacks you, performing and attack manoeuvre when someone moves near you. Performing the attack manoeuvre when someone charges you, etc.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 18:38:43
Hm, that makes sense. As I start to fiddle with some numbers for my own game, I like the idea of a Fatigue/Stamina concept. To me if feels far more ingrained with what's read though the FR Novels and how it's expressed in the lore. Not being able to get a spell off or just defending yourself against creatures with your weapon due to just extreme exhaustion can certainly have that effect. I had arbitrarily started the Stamina Pool (SP) at around 5 + a roll of d8, which fuels everything from spellcasting to combat maneuvers. There are things that would take very little effort (practical magical effects) and just your competency with a weapon but executing a master strike or a fairly complicated spell would certainly mean an expenditure of effort and energy. Thus a character with say (SP) 9, could get off magic bolt (1d4) for free but having it automatically hit with 2d4+2 would take 3 points to pull off (I just used any number, lol.)
What do you do for recuperating fatigue? Just normal sleep and rest and it comes back? |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 18:37:29
If anyone is interested, I'm always looking for an extra pair of brain cells to help with stuff, or a playtester or two. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 17:37:23
I just went for a simple adding up all attributes gives you your max fatigue.
Casting a spell requires a skill check like everything else.
The chance to fail the casting depends upon the task. Swinging a sword isn't hard, walking is easy (for someone with legs), using a computer is harder than swinging a sword. I put casting a spell at a similar level for using a computer.
That being said, a highly skilled person should have almost no chance of failure at a basic level (add in high winds an earthquake etc and things may change), but there should always be some chance.
But that's what finite bonuses are for. You can spend them to boost you on power attacks or stop you from failing.
I'm fairly certain even archmages experience a brain fart now and then and forget the words. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 17:28:43
Gary, it sounds really interesting. How is fatigue calculated for each player? You also mentioned attributes such as Body and Agility, I'm assuming that plays into Fatigue as a modifier or adds to a base number? For spells having the ability to fail, this reminds me of DCC where it's usually a Caster Level check with a big list of circumstances that could occurr based on the roll. For exampele, if the player wanted to cast Magic Missile, they'd roll a d20 + Caster Level (usually character level) + Intelligence modifier and based on the roll, you could just simply fail (often a DC 8-12) or succeed by a little bit (1 bolt of magic for 1d4+1) or "Crit" and roll something like 5 bolts. There's always the possibility of rolling a natural 1, which imposes some nasty effects and even things like curses, misfires, taint, corruption, etc. So often high level casters don't look exactly right, lol. I think it's hilarious, but probably too dark/odd for a setting like the Forgotten Realms. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 17:14:53
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
to reiterate: what would be YOUR ideal RPG system look like if it was designed specifically with the Realms in mind? It's a great question that Faraer asked back in 2010 ...
None of the discussion has mentioned a certain point of view on the Realms.
D&D editions and Forgotten Realms editions evolved together. The "Realms" in 1E was a different place than the "Realms" in 2E. Different rules, different history, different lore. Different again in 3E. And in every iteration which followed.
The rules, lore, sourcebooks, adventures, novels, etc invariably get designed and written and published together. As a sort of all-or-nothing bundle or set, meant to be played on its own with little considerations (and with increasing incompatibilities) toward other editions.
In essence, we already have "a roleplaying game custom-designed for the Realms". Indeed, we have at least five or six of them now.
And I get that. With each new edition we get tons of lore discrepancies, things that don't jive or fit well, or things that are retroactively added or dismissed. I feel that's only inevitable as the Setting adjusts around an ever moving gaming company that changes up the variables every 6-10 years. However, I adamantly believe that there's an underlying narrative that ALL version of the Realms tend to gravitate towards, often coalescing with the non-mechanical stories and novels that have come out (even now).
Take a Realms novel, any novel, and - despite authors different styles of writing - I'll bet that the VAST majority of that novel could easily be placed into any edition of the D&D game. What they don't talk about in novels are spell levels, feats, templates, gamists terms that we tend to associate with X, Y, or Z version of the game. THATS what I think should be catered to.
Even when discussing things like a specific "class" like, say a Paladin, that could just as easily be attributed to a job or profession or organization or even just something a person identifies as due to a set practiced of behaviors. Class names are usually just simple Titles people use to categorize a group of people. We see this with the game system Dungeon Crawl Classics, where titles are designed by alignment within a specific group.
So looking beyond the limited scope of Dungeons and Dragons game editions, there should be aspects about the Realms that jump out as unique, yet undefined by system mechanics. Things like High Elven Magic and Mythals, Spell Mantles, Chosen of Insert Deity Here, TONS of organizations like the Red Wizards, Zhentarim, the Harpers, The Knights of Myth Drannor, and plenty of cults like the Cult of the Dragon, the Cult of Malar, etc. There's LOTS of things that can play into a non-D&D System but remain true to the Forgotten Realms. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 16:53:30
Killing dozens of orcs is fine. A well prepared individual with the experience should be able to do that. Setup traps to eliminate some, use a ranged weapon to take out others, then funnel the opponents so you take on only a few at a time. But get surrounded by 20-30 orcs and you should be dead with a capital D.
Just my thought but being high level doesnt make you stab proof, and if you present your back to an opponent then its going to get a knife in it.
My whole system has a hierarchy of redundancy so you can use any expertise (like a sub-skill) or skill, or attribute in place of one another. I could use my longsword expertise or my melee combat skill or my Body or Agility attribute. The issue is that longsword costs 5 xp to increase in rank while melee combat costs 10 to increase in rank and Body costs 20 to increase in rank.
For a player they can get as detailed and specialised as they want.
For my minion, i just want to give him 1 Body, 1 Agility and thats it.
Because of the hierarchy of redundancy the minion can be used with only attributes just the same as a player character can be used with skills and expertise.
The minion's stat block becomes Goblin: Body 1, Agility 1, Short Sword
I suppose it might take a bit of getting used to for free form skills and manoeuvres, but how many times has a player said - i want to swing from the chandelier and flying kick the bad guy. Its not really catered for in defined systems, often requiring multiple rolls, but in a freeform system they could do it with Agility, or Acrobatics, or Gymnast or any other set of skills that the player wants and the gm agrees to (ultimately gm decides)
For magic i went with health powering spells - although i dont have health i have fatigue - Fatigue powers the actions (perform an action generate fatigue), it powers the damage system (get hit, generate fatigue), and the magic system (cast spells, generate fatigue), it also forms the turn order system (you act on your fatigue score, and at the start of a scene its a free for all with everyone going at the same time).
I took inspiration from Ed's novels where casters get tired, and many other realms novels where it talks about them sacrificing life force to push themselves in casting. But ultimately it was the dragonlance novels and raistlin that were formative for this.
Fatigue is my primary resource for everything.
Now spells should be configurable, i might want to do extra damage, i might want to change the damage type, i might want to extend the range or the duration. All that is going to come from Fatigue. Your magic using skills determine how much fatigue you can spend on a single spell.
Using fatigue is a natural limiter for spells (espeically in a levelless system where the max fatigue for a character would be about 20 at end game), anyone trying to cast cloud kill 1000 times a day will be exhausted by the 3rd casting unless they are casting weak ass cloud kills (which is entirely possible). But to counter that fatigue is really easy to reduce, it does so every round and a simple skill check will lower it - no more need for healers.
Also, the crux of the system is that nothing is automatically successful, everything can fail - even magic (although the chance of it is low unless you are completely unskilled).
No more automatically successful heals or divinations or teleportations. Your skill (and a bit of luck) determine whether it is successful and how successful. So while you could in theory cast unlimited spells per day (if you could take that much fatigue), they might not all work, or the effectiveness of them is not guaranteed to be awesome.
Its a markedly different system from DnD (even though it started there), the design philosophies are fundamentally different. But at the same time i want it to be familiar in feel. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 16:40:19
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I think one of the biggest questions to all of this comes down to "will the game be human created character sheets and human dice rolling/figuring out each step OR will the game have a program that helps create character sheet and a program that helps manage combat rounds".
You're talking about something akin to D&D Beyond where the dice rolling and character options are digitally displayed and upkept on devices? So as someone who runs a weekly Discord game (I get a few ppl that come over in person, thankfully) and they all use D&D Beyond for their characters, I really don't think it's great. Yes, I do have D&D Beyond but I find that it's not all that helpful and I end jp just writing it down anyways. From loss of HP and resources spent to homebrewed content like spells and items. I just don't feel like basic-coding just to see my work fancy displayed on a screen.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
A lot of the problems come down to hours being spent managing a few rounds of combat. I've yet to play a game where the computer handle all the combat for an entire group (that being said, I have played MMORPG's... and that's very similar), but I know its available. Part of the problem with most MMORPGs is that they specifically hide the mechanics from most players AND they are typically built on a leveling scale that makes a character quickly become untouchable by lower level creatures.... and that revolves around the fact that they want to hook a person into playing this game nonstop. Not sure where the solution is here.
Well, I think the first issue to deal with is the fact that games like that are entirely centered around combat. I think it's fair to say that there's zero shortage of RPGs (and MMORPGs) that cater to people who love delving into the think of combat. However, there should be more to that. I'm not suggesting it becomes like a SIMS, but centering stories and campaigns around people and struggles they're going though - that can be tackled a myriad of ways besides combat is a key component here and might attract people who want more balance to their games.
Think of D&D and how it evolved from 1e/2e from the player's perspective. In 3e, there were lots of rules for things like running and building keeps (Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) and running a war campaign (Heroes of Battle) but the VAST majority of best sellers for that system were books that amped up player power, player options, and combinations for combat. 4E simply kept that trend going. 5e took a small step back, but I still find that the biggest sellers of their catalogue are Xanathar's Guide and Tasha's Cauldron, which have the most player-driven material.
So if you were to take OUT the focus that is primarily on combat, put focus on player agency into other areas and make those other areas appealing, I think you'll see players stop treating every single obstacle as a nail to be beaten and their character as the hammer. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 16:26:50
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Any combat lasting 30 minutes is far too long for me. If that 30 minutes is 10 rounds or 5 depends on the system. I'm trying to do away with the concept of rounds and turns (waiting to take your action is not immersive but necessary to avoid chaos, doesnt mean we cannot move away from a static 2 actions per turn, one turn per round).
I'm fine with monsters surviving several hits, but if you find the weak spot / vulnerability and put all your power into it then a one shot kill is also fine.
I'm trying to improve player agency so that they make the decisions as to what happens. They can throw all their bonuses and power into a single attack, but if they fail to defeat it then they are in danger.
Interesting ideas! For one, I like that players can, and really they should, research monsters they might encounter. This has multiple avenues of application for both the lore of the setting and in-game characteristics. For starters, knowing that a specific undead or abberation or monster is vulnerable to something is HIGHLY valuable. Players should seek that out. There should be things out there that players can research, which means more things to quest/look for that isn't just the simple +X magic item thingy-ma-bob. Second, it deliciously allows the notion for WRONG information. Many creatures are devious and smart, you don't think they're out there putting wrong information or fake info to give them an advantage?
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Drizzt is uber ridiculous and quite frankly boring. If there is no danger then what is the point. I'm all for a character being stronger as they improve, but that power should mean they can take on more weaker opponents (maybe 3 at once), not destroy all weaker opponents without fear of being hurt.
I stopped reading Drizzt sometime during his stint to Neverwinter with Breunor. Not because I disliked it, but I had more fun or important things to do or read. But you're correct, some of the situations he got wrote into seemed...improbable for a believable story. Still, I think that sort of speaks to the fact that he is just that high a level and actually caters to the style of D&D that's prevalent now. A 17th-level (or higher) character pretty much DOES carve up dozens upon dozens of Orcs easily.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I want a basic monster to be little more than the type of monster and their 4 attributes. At the same time, if i have a boss or special monster, then the gm can buy them whatever abilities they see fit and run them like a player character. Currently i dont see that split between minions and bosses, they both still require hefty stat blocks because so many stats are derived and calculated from other things.
I'd definitely like a more muted/minimalized stat format myself. Since resurrecting this scroll, I checked out some basic style RPGs and came across the Microlite20 RPG. It's the 3.5 SRD boiled down to some pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately it still clings to levels and classes, but I did like how Monsters are just their Basics:
Kobold: HD 1d8 (4hp), AC 15, Spear +1 (1d6-1) or sling +3 (1d3) and that's it. This I can get behind. Fast, simple, easy to apply and still gets the job done. If I want to make a "Strong" one, I just amp up the HP or maybe make the Spear better. Give him better armor.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
When performing skills i have players gain 1 "experience" point if they fail (and the task contributed towards the goal of the scene). That "experience can be used to buy a skill rank (10xp cost per rank) or a feat of some kind (5 xp per rank). The feats extend the skills or improve some other stat.
Everything progress by +1 so there is no balancing. You want 1 extra hp (although i dont actually have health, it has a different function) then you buy it.
Skills are freeform. The player can have skills in whatever they want to be and define what it is used for (with the gm agreement). So i could be skill in longsword or melee combat or farming. These skills can be used for a variety of manoeuvres (like attacking or moving or some kind of skill manoeuvre or even just knowing stuff).
Interesting. So that's pretty freeform and way more varied than even what I was thinking (which was like the Skill trees from Skyrim). But I have seen that applied in 13th Age with how they do skills. You start with a total of 8 points and apply them in any manner you want into anything you want, but you have to justify it's use to the GM as you play. So for example, if I have 2 ranks in Farming and the group comes across some dead crops, I could apply my +2 to a check to see what might have killed them but I probably couldn't apply that skill on the best way to say...cook them.
The only issue I have with this is that it really relies on a great GM/Player personal understanding and mutual goals. That works great for groups who get together routinely, less so for strangers or acquaintances who might get together via internet/discord play.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I also did the mech style suit but for ironman. The suit is a vehicle, it has no health, it has durability. As it gets damaged then it loses capability with its various components (laser beams, repulsors, targeting systems, even the pilot or passengers) as they get damaged. Ultimately it becomes so broken it cannot do what it once did.
I use the same system for armour, but usually (unless in a scifi game) the armour is so simple that its only function is to be armour and reduce incoming damage).
Its a system all about removing the chaff of traditional systems (no initiative, no health - sort of, no damage rolls, no spells per day, no separate resources - sort of. Then reusing certain components as much as possible, so rage become adrenaline and can be used for a barbarian style rage but is also used to counter the death spiral.
Magic is the next big beast i have to slay. I want a player to be able to add to it by using up resources whenever they want, and i want it as freeform as possible, but not so onerous that people cant be bothered to dabble with it.
How do you envision Magic as it fits into the overall fabric of the world? I think one of the big issues that faces the Forgotten Realms is just how reliant the setting is on having magic be a constant source of power, usefulness, and identity. Not to mention the varying levels of power shown by individuals throughout its history. Should there be some way in which that is arbitrarily controlled, even if its as simple as Mystra saying "Ok, you've cast enough today" *tuns off magic fountain*? Because while the setting is rampant with those who cast magic, there's still limitations they face, even in the novels (Shandra comes to mind here).
I love the freeform style that can go into it, but there should be some measures that keep things (even just from a gamist standpoint) from getting crazy, otherwise what's stopping someone from casting cloudkill (or the variation thereof) 1000 times a day? Which I think comes back to the trust between GM and player to make a fun game.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Happy to talk rpg system design all day long, especially with a realms enthusiast where we can discuss the edge cases that the realms often deals in.
Absolutely! Really, I'm trying to read up on as many game systems as I can and see what sticks, what sort of unnecessary, and what seems to be essential. Player Agency is one that really sticks out as being a prime position. Structure is there, but it certainly doesn't need the tight reigns that D&D has traditionally put on it. There has to be a nice middle ground between complete free-form / narrative style and dice-rolling for everything. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 15:58:32
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
to reiterate: what would be YOUR ideal RPG system look like if it was designed specifically with the Realms in mind? It's a great question that Faraer asked back in 2010 ...
None of the discussion has mentioned a certain point of view on the Realms.
D&D editions and Forgotten Realms editions evolved together. The "Realms" in 1E was a different place than the "Realms" in 2E. Different rules, different history, different lore. Different again in 3E. And in every iteration which followed.
The rules, lore, sourcebooks, adventures, novels, etc invariably get designed and written and published together. As a sort of all-or-nothing bundle or set, meant to be played on its own with little considerations (and with increasing incompatibilities) toward other editions.
In essence, we already have "a roleplaying game custom-designed for the Realms". Indeed, we have at least five or six of them now. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 14:53:56
I think one of the biggest questions to all of this comes down to "will the game be human created character sheets and human dice rolling/figuring out each step OR will the game have a program that helps create character sheet and a program that helps manage combat rounds". A lot of the problems come down to hours being spent managing a few rounds of combat. I've yet to play a game where the computer handle all the combat for an entire group (that being said, I have played MMORPG's... and that's very similar), but I know its available. Part of the problem with most MMORPGs is that they specifically hide the mechanics from most players AND they are typically built on a leveling scale that makes a character quickly become untouchable by lower level creatures.... and that revolves around the fact that they want to hook a person into playing this game nonstop. Not sure where the solution is here. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 14:26:06
Any combat lasting 30 minutes is far too long for me. If that 30 minutes is 10 rounds or 5 depends on the system. I'm trying to do away with the concept of rounds and turns (waiting to take your action is not immersive but necessary to avoid chaos, doesnt mean we cannot move away from a static 2 actions per turn, one turn per round).
I'm fine with monsters surviving several hits, but if you find the weak spot / vulnerability and put all your power into it then a one shot kill is also fine.
I'm trying to improve player agency so that they make the decisions as to what happens. They can throw all their bonuses and power into a single attack, but if they fail to defeat it then they are in danger.
Drizzt is uber ridiculous and quite frankly boring. If there is no danger then what is the point. I'm all for a character being stronger as they improve, but that power should mean they can take on more weaker opponents (maybe 3 at once), not destroy all weaker opponents without fear of being hurt.
I want a basic monster to be little more than the type of monster and their 4 attributes. At the same time, if i have a boss or special monster, then the gm can buy them whatever abilities they see fit and run them like a player character. Currently i dont see that split between minions and bosses, they both still require hefty stat blocks because so many stats are derived and calculated from other things.
When performing skills i have players gain 1 "experience" point if they fail (and the task contributed towards the goal of the scene). That "experience can be used to buy a skill rank (10xp cost per rank) or a feat of some kind (5 xp per rank). The feats extend the skills or improve some other stat.
Everything progress by +1 so there is no balancing. You want 1 extra hp (although i dont actually have health, it has a different function) then you buy it.
Skills are freeform. The player can have skills in whatever they want to be and define what it is used for (with the gm agreement). So i could be skill in longsword or melee combat or farming. These skills can be used for a variety of manoeuvres (like attacking or moving or some kind of skill manoeuvre or even just knowing stuff).
I also did the mech style suit but for ironman. The suit is a vehicle, it has no health, it has durability. As it gets damaged then it loses capability with its various components (laser beams, repulsors, targeting systems, even the pilot or passengers) as they get damaged. Ultimately it becomes so broken it cannot do what it once did.
I use the same system for armour, but usually (unless in a scifi game) the armour is so simple that its only function is to be armour and reduce incoming damage).
Its a system all about removing the chaff of traditional systems (no initiative, no health - sort of, no damage rolls, no spells per day, no separate resources - sort of. Then reusing certain components as much as possible, so rage become adrenaline and can be used for a barbarian style rage but is also used to counter the death spiral.
Magic is the next big beast i have to slay. I want a player to be able to add to it by using up resources whenever they want, and i want it as freeform as possible, but not so onerous that people cant be bothered to dabble with it.
Happy to talk rpg system design all day long, especially with a realms enthusiast where we can discuss the edge cases that the realms often deals in. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 13:59:24
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Well, i have to say i've never been that enamoured with the DnD editions, especially when it came to running the Forgotten Realms.
Combat always took sooooo long, becoming a game of attrition that was not fun for anybody.
What would be your ideal time frame for any type of combat, or does that change depending on the challenge? Is fighting a group of goblins (2-6) a shorter time than a vampire lord, or should it be the same?
For one, I absolutely agree with you. Even as a 4e fan, I knew that was the style of game it was going for. No pretense, its combat centric at its core and it enjoys big set pices and tactical game-play. Heck, I feel 3e and 5e often venture towards this as well. But to you, what does a "standard" fight look like? Should it be emphasized? Should it be about as interesting as crafting something or speaking to NPCs on Neverwinter's streets? Also, there's generally two schools of thought on combat: 1) generally hard to hit target, but goes down fast (1e-2e) or easier to hit but takes MANY hits to down (3e, 4e, 5e). Which do you prefer?
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Combat was pretty much the only focus, all other types of interaction with the game world were paddling pool shallow at best.
End game meant that anything from the early stages of the game could not touch you. A 1st level character had a 0% chance of harming a 20th level character even if there were hundreds or thousands of them.
You definitely put into perspective why certain games have charm, like Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) and even E6 style 3.5, that despite having some levels and accessibility to magic, a dozen orcs is still a threat. Makes it feel more realistic and down to "earth" than what D&D does late-stage.
With this viewpoint, does this mean, that some grand tales in the Forgotten Realms come off rather ridiculous? Drizzt cutting through a thousand orcs over the course of days seems too grandiose considering that a random arrow could instantly kill him, or is there another variable involved?
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Monsters were either cookie cutter copies of each other (2e), or they were variable but took enormous amounts of time to create and prepare and balance an encounter with any form of opponent (3e, 4e, 5e).
So modularity is a great too, but keeping it simple is key. One of the things I like about 13th Age is that, for the most part, the monsters are quick stat blocks of important info in a fight rather than a page worth of texts and numbers that I then have to cross-reference with the PHB. So in the best of situations, a monster should be easy to run and have a strong identity, but not to the point of excessiveness.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
So i made my own system to try and resolve the above issues and allow people to do things with their character that appear in the novels.
I made it class less. If i want my character to be a warrior type with a staff then i can, if i want him to also learn a few spells then so be it, if i want him to be excellent at fishing then that's also fine.
I made it level less. Levels only served to add extra hit points or other arbitrary values that contributed to the end game problem.
I made it skill based, so the focus of the game is not on combat, but on any kind of interaction. All progression and interaction with the world is through the skills.
I also got rid of the huge modifiers and penalties lists, for a more add bonuses if you want to (and have some) style of play (you spend bonuses like a resource).
That's precisely where my mind was going. When playing through games like Skyrim or the Souls/Elden Ring games, there's so much room for variations and adaptability for your character, that your not bogged down by specifics of "class" or tiered levels. That's what really prompted me to buy the Fuzion system (which is basically an updated HERO System), because it does a lot of what I was looking for. Unfortunately it's also bogged down with unnecessary math and clunky mechanics that I find it really unwieldy. But the concept is good.
So with no level or class, is everything then broken down into Skills? Are there categories, skill trees, or traits of that nature? Usually you start with a set amount of points, kind of a <here's your background> thing. So does that play into it?
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
I'm still a work in progress with my system but i'm reasonably happy that you can do whatever you want with it. I've tried it with a super hero test, a horror test, a fantasy test(i'm hoping to do a mechwarrior or star wars style test).
So in short, didnt like any edition, made my own
That sounds pretty awesome. When I started my Mecha system (loosely based on 13th Age) I had this concept that each "class/chassis" of mech was a shell and the pilot (determined level) could hop into any mech to play. So even if the class/chassis got downed, the pilot had the chance to jump ship - so to speak - and find another class to play. This allowed me to litter the battlefields with all sorts of interesting "characters" that pilots could jump into and then modify during their downtime or build their own. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 12:47:04
Well, i have to say i've never been that enamoured with the DnD editions, especially when it came to running the Forgotten Realms.
Combat always took sooooo long, becoming a game of attrition that was not fun for anybody.
Combat was pretty much the only focus, all other types of interaction with the game world were paddling pool shallow at best.
End game meant that anything from the early stages of the game could not touch you. A 1st level character had a 0% chance of harming a 20th level character even if there were hundreds or thousands of them.
Monsters were either cookie cutter copies of each other (2e), or they were variable but took enormous amounts of time to create and prepare and balance an encounter with any form of opponent (3e, 4e, 5e).
So i made my own system to try and resolve the above issues and allow people to do things with their character that appear in the novels.
I made it class less. If i want my character to be a warrior type with a staff then i can, if i want him to also learn a few spells then so be it, if i want him to be excellent at fishing then that's also fine.
I made it level less. Levels only served to add extra hit points or other arbitrary values that contributed to the end game problem.
I made it skill based, so the focus of the game is not on combat, but on any kind of interaction. All progression and interaction with the world is through the skills.
I also got rid of the huge modifiers and penalties lists, for a more add bonuses if you want to (and have some) style of play (you spend bonuses like a resource).
I'm still a work in progress with my system but i'm reasonably happy that you can do whatever you want with it. I've tried it with a super hero test, a horror test, a fantasy test(i'm hoping to do a mechwarrior or star wars style test).
So in short, didnt like any edition, made my own
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2023 : 11:51:43
*casts* ::Raise Scroll::
So instead of making a new thread about, well this very same topic, I figured I'd dig this one out and add to the notion, especially in light of Hasbro's bungling efforts dealing with the OGL, the rise of the ORC, and project Black Flag efforts going on.
to reiterate: what would be YOUR ideal RPG system look like if it was designed specifically with the Realms in mind? It's a great question that Faraer asked back in 2010 (and I hope they're still here to discuss!) and really, with the prosperity of 5e and just tons of new TTRPGs coming out - not to mention video games to draw inspiration from - I think the landscape is far different than it was back then.
What drew me back to this old thread was playing Elden Ring (and Skyrim, for that matter) and just how diverse things are in those games. When you look at the width and breadth of the diversity of the Forgotten Realms, I can't help but think that the...limitedness of the Dungeons and Dragons platform hinders that to a degree. In the same vein that we see systemic changes TO D&D for other settings like Dark Sun, Ravenloft and even Eberron, I too feel that FR isn't any different and that the system needs to play to the settings strengths and not the other way around, much like the setting has had to do since 2e.
Then the questions are: What to change and how much should this deviate from the safety and comfort of D&D-normalcy.
I'd like to sort of break it down into a few categories:
System Crunch
Sort of the of meat and potatoes of it. Is it d20 based? Is it d6 based? What have people found success with, and why? Is it primarily rolling vs static DCs or is it Opposed Rolls (which I find takes longer at the table)? And to take it further, is sticking with the common Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha scores necessary, or is something different a better choice? Maybe pair it down to Body, Mind, and Spirit or Body, Magick, Sanity, Weaponry?
Magic
Probably one of the most important aspects of the Forgotten Realms is its ample amount of magic that permeates all corners of the setting. It's high fantasy through and through, so how is that best depicted? With Vancian magic? With spell-points/Mana? Something based on a character's ranks in magic (think Skyrim)? What would you feel best depicts stories from the novels? Also, then there's rituals to take into consideration. From lavish checks and mechanics of 3e for Epic Spells to the loosey-goosey narrative structure of 13th Age, how does one create Rituals, for which there are ample forms in the Forgotten Realms. Maybe different rituals require different rules?
Combat
On the whole, combat comes in a myriad of forms and styles and that's just as notable in Dungeons and Dragons through the ages. From weapon styles and specialization proficiencies of 2e, to feats of 3e, exploits and maneuvers of 4e/5e, what is the best way to handle those who employ weapons? Maybe flexible maneuvers from 13th Age work here, or scalable Critical Hit tables from Dungeon Crawl Classics?
Skills/Professions/Social
These make up most of the non-combat interactions with others in the world and the environment itself. From crafting mundane armor and tools to fabricating potent enchanted wands and rings and dealing with the social interactions of lords and ladys alike. A skill system as detailed as 3.5's was (in my opinion) a bit overkill and extremely narrow in scope. If you wanted to do something, it had to fall into a specific category under a specific stat with a specific DC set. A game that utilizes a broader approach might say the difficulty of doing something ranges all over the place and there's multiple ways to approach it. Are there are lot of variables to take into account, does each one need its own modifier? Are we tying set skills to set abilities? Is there room for differences in trying different angles, like showing considerable strength to intimidate vs. natural charm?
Monsters
I think one of the biggest differences we saw between most versions of D&D is the way in which monsters were altered. I can't find huge differences between them from 1e to 2e, however 3e sort of turned them on their head with the pushing of the d20-System as a catch-all for mechanics that everyone falls into. Any create with 7 Hit Die all gain at least 7 ranks in skill plus 3 feats (human ones get 4). That's the case across the board. Your Hit Die and creature type determine A LOT about what you can do and have access to, much like PCs and class levels. 4E and 5E spun that around, pushing a more gamist mindset. Not everyone is created equal, and you're going to have monsters and individuals that break the PCs rules. A Warrior wielding two greatswords or a wizard casting multiple concentration spells or having considerably more Hit Points than a PC of similar level.
So do monsters follow the same rules? Do we take into account things like Action Economy and party dynamics when designing monsters? What about roles? Should monsters differ based on what capacity they're fulfilling in an adventure?
I'd love to hear responses on what an RPG centered around the Forgotten Realms would look like from you guys. From experiences (good or bad) of all editions, from inspiration and maybe even mechanics of Video Games or how a particular non-D&D game worked something. Stuff like that. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 11 Aug 2010 : 00:28:35
No one wants to play with me in this scroll?  . |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 18:02:39
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
What I mean is - from a game mechanics point of view, two 20th-level magic-users (or 5th-level magic-users, for that matter, or 2nd-level thieves) are basically the same creature. In my view, mechanics should allow to differentiate between a creature that has had 2,000 years of experience behind it, and a human that has 10 years game time.
To put it simply - a mechanical but substantial difference in power, that can be reflected without falling into the elven archmage conundrum of old - how is it possible that elves, described as inherently magical creatures, with lifespans ten times the span of humans' lives, cannot match the humies when it comes to pure magical firepower.
I admit that I do not know how this can be done properly without having to make said lich almost impossible to overcome, or to reduce player characters' development. A skill-based mechanic (like GURPS) would be better suited for that than a level-based one.
Burning Wheel is skill-based and skills have two components, one is the exponent (from 1 to 10) and the other one is the shade (black, grey or white). The exponent gives the number of d6, but the exponent determinte which are success (4-6 for black, 3-6 for grey, 2-6 for white).
That can be very usefull to reflect different kinds of aptitude.
In your case, the lich could have a very high black-shaded Sorcery (and maybe a grey Will) and the young wizard that learn very quickly could have a grey-shaded Sorcery with a lower exponent (and a black Will). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 19:13:07
I have all the rulebooks for iron Kingdoms/Warmachine as well - but I actually own minitures from every one of the factions. I can weild a full Cryx army, and a decent Khador battle-group, but I'm not sure if i have enough of the others to put together a full unit (except as a mercenary company).
I only have the Wood Elves book for Warhammer, since I have a full Wood-Elf army. I probably have enough Dark Elves to throw together a small army of them, but I do not own the book for that faction. The Dark Elves and other odd bits I had purchased to convert into a very custom Wood Elf army, based on that part of the forest where even the regular Wood Elves fear to tread (I forget its name ATM). Like so many other projects, I never completed it - less then half my wood elf army is finished, and none of the conversions were done.
I only did one conversion for Warmachine - that king that went off into the wastes... forget his name. Never painted it though - I have a pic somewhere if you want to see the unpainted conversion. I stuck him on one of those WH raptors the dark Elves and lizarmen ride. 
EDIT: Found It! I still had it up on Photobucket from years ago LOL
Edit2: Also found an unfinished Wood Elf, if you were curious - can't believe I still have some of this stuff on my PB account. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 16:07:31
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In miniatures gaming, each faction has its own rulebook, and if you buy a rulebook for a faction you do not use then you are cheating - it is that simple.
Really? Uh... Oops!  I've got all of the faction books for Warmachine*, even though Cygnar is the only faction worthy of regard. 
And back in the day, I had every WH40k Codex, even though I was only interested in Space Wolves.
*Actually, with the exception of The Witchfire Trilogy, I've got all of the books for Iron Kingdoms and Warmachine. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 14:48:59
One of the many, MANY tweaks I have done down through the years was to use spell points in D&D, and the first time I did so was back in 1e, where I gave characters spell points dependent more upon their age then their level. I only used that in one campaign, which only ran a couple of months - I can't remember why I didn't use it again. Probably because 2e came out (lifting those pesky level caps on non-humans).
Basically, it meant that the 30 yr old lev 18 human mage could cast better spells, but the inherently magical (and old) Elves could cast smaller magics in far greater numbers. The reasoning behind this was that in folklore, Elves and other fey creatures usually cast those smaller magics (like Glamours) - you almost never see the uber-powerful magic except in mythology, where it is being wielded by gods and super-heroic humans.
I suppose if I wanted to reproduce this in 3e, I could have made most non-human casters sorcerers, and humans nearly all wizards. If I really wanted to go that extra mile, I could also give bonus Feats based on Age, which would allow for extra meta-magic Feats (which seem more appropriate for inherently magical creatures). They may not have the shear power of humans, but they should be able to do more with what they have.
Not entirely on-topic for an FR RPG, but giving some of the lore behind the Elves, and most especially Evermeet, I think some of this could be worked-in. I played a system called Chivalry & Sorcery, which included a class called Primitive Talent, and all Elves automatically got this class (aside from any other they took). It wasn't very powerful, but it allowed some magic even if the person was not a spellcaster class, which was perfect for Elves. And if they did take a caster class, they got that little extra firepower from also being a primitive talent.
With a sub-class like that, you alleviate the need for Ranger and Shamanistic magics - you just tack that class onto fighters and priests and your good to go. The downside of it was sharing Exp across two classes, which balanced it.
Maybe something like that - main classes coupled with secondary classes, would work for the Realms. Almost like prestige classes, but some should be available right from the beginning. If you create another like the Natural talent above, but with divine magic, you could even get rid of the Paladin class.
Go back to four basic classes for FR, and add-in sub-classes to differentiate everyone. Or better yet, have skill-sets related to the classes, that anyone can learn (including spell-casting). Then grant skill points based on either level, or age - whichever is higher. That will give you an Elven farmer who can cast magic missiles at some pesky adventures that are bothering him.
Unfortunately, this whole mental exercise is moving the game back into unplayability for people new to RPing, so as Mr. Misc has already pointed out, we must first decide if we wants the realms RPG to be for Grognards or newbs. It might be possible to have both, if we do an OD&D basic-set style of rules for the PHB, and then add-in all the advanced rules in the DMG (where the DM can decide what he wants to use, and what he doesn't). Players don't need to know the rules, beyond what their character is capable of.
In miniatures gaming, each faction has its own rulebook, and if you buy a rulebook for a faction you do not use then you are cheating - it is that simple. In RL, you only know about those things that pertain to you - no-one needs to know where khelben's tower is if they live in Aglarond, or what the personal relationships the gods have with each other - player knowledge on that level destroys many of the elements a DM can use in his games (you know... like SURPRISE).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 14:42:28
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
One thing D&D mechanics failed to do, in my view, was to establish distinctions between, on the one hand, a 2,000-year old 20th level magic-user lich, and a 30-year old 20th-level magic-user PC.
Which in-world distinctions do you mean?
What I mean is - from a game mechanics point of view, two 20th-level magic-users (or 5th-level magic-users, for that matter, or 2nd-level thieves) are basically the same creature. In my view, mechanics should allow to differentiate between a creature that has had 2,000 years of experience behind it, and a human that has 10 years game time.
(Of course, as i said earlier, I know one can argue that the difference can be made in different depictions of said creatures, but roleplaying only goes so far when the two opponents are duking it out.)
To put it simply - a mechanical but substantial difference in power, that can be reflected without falling into the elven archmage conundrum of old - how is it possible that elves, described as inherently magical creatures, with lifespans ten times the span of humans' lives, cannot match the humies when it comes to pure magical firepower.
I admit that I do not know how this can be done properly without having to make said lich almost impossible to overcome, or to reduce player characters' development. A skill-based mechanic (like GURPS) would be better suited for that than a level-based one.
You could prolly do it by giving extra feats, or boosting some DCs, for every decade of life. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 07:29:16
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
One thing D&D mechanics failed to do, in my view, was to establish distinctions between, on the one hand, a 2,000-year old 20th level magic-user lich, and a 30-year old 20th-level magic-user PC.
Which in-world distinctions do you mean?
What I mean is - from a game mechanics point of view, two 20th-level magic-users (or 5th-level magic-users, for that matter, or 2nd-level thieves) are basically the same creature. In my view, mechanics should allow to differentiate between a creature that has had 2,000 years of experience behind it, and a human that has 10 years game time.
(Of course, as i said earlier, I know one can argue that the difference can be made in different depictions of said creatures, but roleplaying only goes so far when the two opponents are duking it out.)
To put it simply - a mechanical but substantial difference in power, that can be reflected without falling into the elven archmage conundrum of old - how is it possible that elves, described as inherently magical creatures, with lifespans ten times the span of humans' lives, cannot match the humies when it comes to pure magical firepower.
I admit that I do not know how this can be done properly without having to make said lich almost impossible to overcome, or to reduce player characters' development. A skill-based mechanic (like GURPS) would be better suited for that than a level-based one. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 07 Aug 2010 : 04:17:57
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
4. A game heavily moderated and guided by role-playing and story with very low levels of mechanics--either simplified or completely absent, so that combat more resembles role-playing encounters.
Dice either don't see use in the game at all, or are reduced to simple opposed checks to determine the outcome when opposing desires come up. (In a sense, it's a game entirely based on skill challenges and role-playing.)
Here I guess that by "role-playing", you mean players assuming an actor stance and talking in-character ?
Every Role-Playing Game needs that, because without it, you end up playing a board game.
"mechanics" are needed to resolve conflicts between people around the table (players and GM), a conflict happens when these people don't agree about what is happening in the shared imagined space.
"role-playing" cannot resolve those conflicts, that's why you need dices, jenga towers, established facts, stats, out-of-character discussions between players/GM, etc.
But never forget that rolling dices doesn't make something "more" true in the shared imagined space than just having all the people around the table agreeing to it.
Anyway, from the description above, you should give a look to The Shadow of Yesterday.
If you really want to forgo dices and stats, you may take a look at Soap, which use structured drama "mechanics" (i.e. plot tokens and turns).
Finally, consider that when you drop all the "mechanics", you end up doing collaborative story telling, no more playing a game (ask yourself if it's really the utopia you are aiming to). |
|
|
