rule design - opinions wanted

[Vinom]

Yes it does, it's called logic, if a = b, then A can be assumed to = B until further evidence is found.

1. John designs games
2. John designs bad rules in his games
3. Therefore all rules John designs are bad.


That isn't logical.

1. John designs games
2. John designs bad rules in his games
3. Therefore all rules John designs are assumed to be bad until proven otherwise.

If a factory make bullets, and you have oberved that bullets by the factory have failed in the gun. In a fight for your life, you'd assume the bullets are flawed and use them only when you have no other options.

[Bauglir]

Only if that happened regularly, or at least with a frequency greater than 1. Otherwise, you'd be likelier to assume it was an environmental factor or something.

Crashy is completely correct here.

[Vinom]

which is why i'm saying bad rules, no a bad rule.

[crashy75]

which is why i'm saying bad rules, no a bad rule.

I don't know what to tell you.  It is not a logically valid conclusion.

[Vinom]

I disagree, and I know I'm right because I'm right, and I know this.

Aka, A is A because it's A and there for true.

[Bauglir]

And thus was the fallacy of Circular Logic defined.

[Ashtagon]

Anyone have any more relevant comments? Or can I take this thread off my watch-list?

[crashy75]

My apologies Ashtagon.  I will not post again unless it is on topic. 

One thing I will say is that it does appear that you might be better served starting with 4e as a base.  You can add the 3.5 goodies as you like (profession, etc.). 

[Vinom]

You might consider looking into the Unknown Armies rule set, splashing a bit of that for non-combat or trap happenings would give you a nice twist...

[DavidWL]

I'm at the stage where I need to make some fundamental decisions on my rules set I am devising, and I want to know what's more popular/sensible/balanceable/froody.

My pet idea is for characters to have "defences" 4e style, for Fortitude (affects health type effects), Reflex (dodging, and touch attacks), Will (mental attacks), and Armour (broadly equivalent to AC). Classes also gain attack bonuses in three different areas (melee, missile, and magic). Attack and defence bonuses vary in each area depending on class and level, and multi-classing is free, subject to RP/campaign expectations.

All attacks, including spells, are resolved as (relevant attack bonus) + (relevant ability score bonus) + (relevant misc. bonuses) + 1d20 vs (relevant defence).

For example, a basic melee attack is (melee + Str) vs (armour). A hit does damage, a missed does nothing.

A fireball spell would be (magic + Int) vs (reflex); a hit does full damage, a miss does half damage.

Magic missile would be (magic + Int + 10) vs (reflex); a hit does full damage, a miss does nothing. The additional +10 noted in there reflects the extremely accurate nature of the original version of the spell.

----

Other stuff that probably needs deciding on sooner or later:

save or die/suck: My favourite idea I've seen so far is ongoing damage against an appropriate ability score until either the ability score is at zero or a certain number of attack rolls fail. Status conditions may also appear (such as slowed or immobilised for flesh to stone) after a certain number of attack rolls succeed.

Multiple attacks: Rather than having 9000 attack rolls in a round for an optimised character, I'm thinking to limit it to one attack with the primary weapon, and one with an off-hand weapon. Add a damage bonus equal to your melee attack bonus instead of multiple attacks. It's less damage overall, but feels more believable for a 6-second round.

I'll try to give you some useful feedback here.

First - have you seen Mutants and Masterminds?  I think they do what you want to do in terms of different types of saves, simplifying rolls, and limited number of attacks per round.  Give it a look - a great game.

Second - there are a few things to consider when designing a game, but I'd suggest you start at the end instead of the beginning:
- How does my rule set encourage people to make cool characters or character classes.  Things that make people go "ooh". 
- What type of game do you want it to be?  : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory
- How are the fields of battle different.

Right now, you are focusing on this last question, saying that your game has "magical combat", "ranged combat", "melee combat".  The stereotypical shadowrun game has gun combat, melee combat, magical combat, spirit combat, internet combat.

The number of different types of conflicts you want to create rules for doesn't matter as long as you spell it out, but, my preference is that each rule set have it's own flavor (if you are only encouraging a few specific type of conflict).  If you want to allow for a game that is all about any type of conflict (think Everway) then you want a more generic rule set.

Example 1:  I want a game about melee, missile, and magic.  I don't encourage other detailed conflict, and I want each to have it's own character
- There is a BAB for each
- Melee combat is about mobility, and people spend skill points to learn cool tricks
- Magic is about rare power and stays the same system
- Archery is about spending feats for tactical-like tricks, Archery classes give bonus feats for archery. 

In short, each type of conflict has a slightly different rule set, and different resourcing.

Example 2:  I want a game about melee, missile and magic, but it is a generic ruleset which could also cover diplomatic conflict as well.
- There is a Primary Bab, and a secondary Bab.
- The player decides what arena the primary Bab applies to (for example, Magic).
- The secondary bab applies to anything else.
- Saves are mental or physical
- In melee, I make an attack, the person makes a physical save.
- In missile, I make an attack, the person makes a physical save.
- In magic, I make an attack, the person makes a mental save.
- In diplomacy, I make an attaack, the person makes a mental save.
- If you lose the save, you suffer a minor setback (physical if melee or missile, mental if diplomacy, depends if magic).

Summary:
- Decide what arena's you want to focus on
- Decide if you want them to be different, or the same
- Describe the rules
- Make sure that the rules encourage coolness.
---You can do this through cool examples
---Cool class abilities / feats
---Generic guidelines that build in complication, etc.

Also, take a look at Mutants and Masterminds (a lot of what you're talking about), Everway (generic approach to conflict) and shadowrun (specialized approach to conflict).

Best,
David

[SiggyDevil]

David +1 fu
Great, well-organized advice.

[Ashtagon]

I've read through M&M, and the main new mechanic seems to be the wounds system. Everything else seems to be a common variant, Superhero-specific, or something in UA.

In terms of setting-concepts, the rules system I am building is intended to emulate a more gritty/realistic level, but at the same time, avoiding character level inflation. There's probably no more than a half-dozen individuals in the real world of 10th level, and call it 50/50 that someone, somewhere, is 11th level. Scale things down appropriately for lower-population worlds. The basic conceit for level estimation is: 10% of people are 2nd or higher, 10% of those are 3rd or higher, 10% of those are 4th or higher, etc. Skills and abilities should also be scaled to reflect (at least for purely martial characters) something that approximates real human potential, and not "fantasy superheroes" (my biggest gripe against 4e). I guess in that GNS paradigm, I want a gamist philosophy, but something that grants simulationist levels of believability.

For scaling back iterative attacks, I did some maths last week, and figured that allowing "roll X times, take best roll" is mathematically almost exactly the same (for level-appropriate enemies) as RAW 3e iteratives.

The division between melee and missile combat I'm a bit iffy about. I may just make it a series of feats that grant that focusing instead. After all, what's the difference between a 3e fighter with weapon feat trees focused in melee weapons (or missile weapons) and the difference I considered coding into the base attack bonus for each class (don't answer that - it's a rhetorical question). And the "magic attack bonus" was essentially just codifying the caster level into the same terminology as martial combat.

[DavidWL]

I've read through M&M, and the main new mechanic seems to be the wounds system. Everything else seems to be a common variant, Superhero-specific, or something in UA.

I disagree
- Replaced HP with saves / wounds
- Replaced virtually all special abilities and magic with powers
- Made it point buy
- Only 1 attack per character
- etc.

Everything they've done has been done before in other games, but their execution was very nice, and it put a lot of things together and refined them in nice ways.

In your original post you touch on the following:
- Treat magic damage and melee damage similarly
- Have separate BABs / Saves that treat magic and melee similarly
- etc.
M&M does this.  I think your objection is more to the super vs. gritty.

In terms of setting-concepts, the rules system I am building is intended to emulate a more gritty/realistic level,

Cool.  That is useful to know.

but at the same time, avoiding character level inflation. There's probably no more than a half-dozen individuals in the real world of 10th level, and call it 50/50 that someone, somewhere, is 11th level. Scale things down appropriately for lower-population worlds. The basic conceit for level estimation is: 10% of people are 2nd or higher, 10% of those are 3rd or higher, 10% of those are 4th or higher, etc. Skills and abilities should also be scaled to reflect (at least for purely martial characters) something that approximates real human potential, and not "fantasy superheroes" (my biggest gripe against 4e). I guess in that GNS paradigm, I want a gamist philosophy, but something that grants simulationist levels of believability.

I wouldn't worry about "character level".  What matters is what abilities character get at different levels.

Let's say that at each level a character gained 1 skill point, and nothing else.  Would it be objectionable that often people where high level?  I think not.

Likewise, *you* get to decide how often people are higher level.  If you like the above numbers, that's fine, but I don't want you to go with those numbers just because that's cannon...

For scaling back iterative attacks, I did some maths last week, and figured that allowing "roll X times, take best roll" is mathematically almost exactly the same (for level-appropriate enemies) as RAW 3e iteratives.

That's cool and interesting, but none the less, the goal isn't to keep things the same, so I'd suggest not using the "it's almost the exact same" as the reason you change something.

The division between melee and missile combat I'm a bit iffy about. I may just make it a series of feats that grant that focusing instead. After all, what's the difference between a 3e fighter with weapon feat trees focused in melee weapons (or missile weapons) and the difference I considered coding into the base attack bonus for each class (don't answer that - it's a rhetorical question).

It sounds like you want to keep the combat system the same, with the only change being that ranged combat and melee combat have separate BABs.  Is that correct?

And the "magic attack bonus" was essentially just codifying the caster level into the same terminology as martial combat.

Hmm.  But do you want magic to look more like combat, or less?  In combat people make attacks vs. AC, and then do damage. 

Do you want people with magic to make caster level checks vs. SR (something everyone has), and then have an effect?

In your new combat, they have one attack that does medium damage.  Do you want the same with magic?

Etc.

Best,
David

[DavidWL]

New post with some thoughts:

1)  I'm assuming that these are what you want (so far):
- Magic, Melee, and Ranged are your different types of combat
- All 3 are treated the same
- It is more "gritty", which means (to me)
--- There is less difference between level 1 and level 20
--- All people are a little more ... vulnerable.

2)  It is more gritty

- I would think think you object to a commoner dropping 10' and often falling unconscious, bleeding, and dying.  When, at the same time, a 10th level fighter can fall 100' and walk away basically unharmed.

One potential fix (a la "grim and gritty") - http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/81277-ken-hoods-grim-n-gritty-rules-available-here.html

3)  Some questions so that I better understand what you are wanting to accomplish:
So, how would you classify the changes / reasons for the change? 
Are you wanting to make combat simpler or faster?  (Potentially with fewer options ...). 
Are you wanting to mages and fighters more alike in combat? 
Do you still want to allow mages all of those nifty options?  (forcecage, solid fog, shapechange, ...)
Do you still want mages to be able to do something big a few times a day where fighters can do something small all the time?
Do you want to create a range of cool stuff fighters can do?  (A la tome of battle?)

Best,
David

P.S.  Thanks SiggyDevil!

[veekie]

I think a preconstructed power advancement via Mutants & Masterminds should do what you want. It's more of a toolkit after all, and can be used to create a class system, if you don't like the freeform nature of point buy leaving players free to rape themselves up the ass/creatively obtain discounts. Multiclassing works very nicely here, since nearly everything is compatible.

Most of the 'win' powers scale nicely as well, you'd need to hit multiple times to win, unless you overwhelm the opponent with pure brute force, and likewise I haven't actually found much that the powers, properly Linked, Limited and Restricted can't replicate.

[Ashtagon]

(running out of time before I have to go away for the weekend)

1. Yes, it is intended to portray a more realistic level of character. I'm also focusing on melee/ranged/magic as primary dice-based conflict resolution systems. These three are to be treated as similarly as possible in terms of mechanics. (diplomacy can be done to some extent by a skills system, but primarily it is a RP issue).
2. I actually intend to have about the same difference in scale between levels 1 and 20 as in 3e. But primary campaigns should occur in the single-digit levels. Classes will be redesigned so that powers can be chosen in any order (all skill abilities become a kind of feat, essentially). High level characters should be one step away from being demi-gods, and rarely if ever encountered.
3. I intend to simply a lot of the combat options (esp. grappling). Iterative attacks becoming "multiple rolls, pick the best" being one such example.
4. Mages (and priests) are intended to be squishy, either blasters, buffers, or crowd controllers/pleasers.
5. I intend to port in most wizard spells. The paradigm I wrote upthread is fine for simple blaster spells, but I'll need to work out something for the rest.
6. Magic is probably going to be limited by a mana system, with critical fumbles if you accidentally run out of mana. ToB-type stuff is in. Fighters will definitely have options beside "I hit him. Really hard."
7. Hit points are staying.
8. I have no issue with low-level mooks dying from 10 foot falls, or 10th level super humans (which, lets face it, they are. they are literally one in a billion type individuals) surviving a 100-foot fall. I'm a bit weird on mid-level characters surviving a 30-foot fall and walking away though. I'll probably rule that falling damage does something to ability scores as well. I definitely want to avoid the "60-foot pit? ok, I step over the edge to see what's down there" issue.

[DavidWL]

1. Yes, it is intended to portray a more realistic level of character. I'm also focusing on melee/ranged/magic as primary dice-based conflict resolution systems. These three are to be treated as similarly as possible in terms of mechanics. (diplomacy can be done to some extent by a skills system, but primarily it is a RP issue).

Then this does seem to me to be a case of mage's roll to-hit with their spells, and people get SR.  This, then, would make all use the same basic system.

2. I actually intend to have about the same difference in scale between levels 1 and 20 as in 3e. But primary campaigns should occur in the single-digit levels. Classes will be redesigned so that powers can be chosen in any order (all skill abilities become a kind of feat, essentially). High level characters should be one step away from being demi-gods, and rarely if ever encountered.

Sounds like True d20 mixed with e6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/200754-e6-game-inside-d-d-new-revision.html)

3. I intend to simply a lot of the combat options (esp. grappling). Iterative attacks becoming "multiple rolls, pick the best" being one such example.

Hmm.  How does flurry work?  TWF?  Snap Kick?  Etc.  If my character is an 8th level Monk with an attack sequence of +5/+5/+0 what happens?

4. Mages (and priests) are intended to be squishy, either blasters, buffers, or crowd controllers/pleasers.
5. I intend to port in most wizard spells. The paradigm I wrote upthread is fine for simple blaster spells, but I'll need to work out something for the rest.

How is that different from today?  If you fundamentally aren't changing caster's, but are nerfing fighters (few attacks, fewer options), then this seems to be complicating an existing problem ...

And frankly, weakening their blasting spells is largely irrelevant, since that isn't the most powerful way for mages to go anyway.

6. Magic is probably going to be limited by a mana system, with critical fumbles if you accidentally run out of mana. ToB-type stuff is in. Fighters will definitely have options beside "I hit him. Really hard."

Ok, ToB will help even the playing field.  However, how does one "accidentally" run out of mana?  (I'm assuming you mean a spell points system).

7. Hit points are staying.
8. I have no issue with low-level mooks dying from 10 foot falls, or 10th level super humans (which, lets face it, they are. they are literally one in a billion type individuals) surviving a 100-foot fall. I'm a bit weird on mid-level characters surviving a 30-foot fall and walking away though. I'll probably rule that falling damage does something to ability scores as well. I definitely want to avoid the "60-foot pit? ok, I step over the edge to see what's down there" issue.

What do you think of the Grim and Gritty rules?

Really the problem is that HP and damage scales (roughly) linearly with level.

Best,
David

[Kerrick]

Just a few random comments...

I second David's comment about E6 - you should check it out, because it's a lot like what you seem to be doing (along with a heavy dose of 4E).

A 30-foot fall won't kill you, even if you fall onto concrete, unless you happen to land on your head. You might wish you were dead, but chances are you won't actually die. People can survive falls of 100 feet or more, though they usually end up in a body cast (the record is a woman who fell 33,000 feet without a parachute and made it out with a fractured skull, broken legs, and three broken vertebrae).

There's a house rule someone posted for falling damage that works off Con damage; I tried it out for Project Phoenix, but it ended up being too clunky for my taste and I dropped it.

[SiggyDevil]

Keep in mind that the internal bleeding from a ruptured organ might kill you, or a rip puncturing a lung, or long-term effects (infection?) of an unmended broken leg bone sticking out of your skin.
We lack rules for these, but in some ways perhaps for the better.

2. I actually intend to have about the same difference in scale between levels 1 and 20 as in 3e. But primary campaigns should occur in the single-digit levels. Classes will be redesigned so that powers can be chosen in any order (all skill abilities become a kind of feat, essentially). High level characters should be one step away from being demi-gods, and rarely if ever encountered.

I like this too. It's a throwback to D&D 1e in some ways.
Likewise in my own attempts to start a d20-like game from scratch, I've taken a step further towards splitting degrees of power, size, and influence from each other:
A new tier (or rank) every level divisible by 5.
Obviously, 20 is the "god tier"; creating empires and leading thousands in to battle are within that range.
It determines ability access, new scope of combat options, size of armies (influence increase tenfold per tier increase, starting with none or a handful of people under comman at levels 0-4 and then 10 or so at level 5) and size of character dramatically either smaller or larger than humanoid norm.