Reset

DragonCon 2011 was great. I spent most of the time listening to game designers on the various panels. One thing that Tracy Hickman (Dragonlance, etc) said really stuck with me. He said basically that the only useful ability score or skills are the ones you actually use in the game. The pure economic efficiency of this is not lost on me. While the whole attention of this blog is to design a game that observes principles of evolution in it's design, there is no reason one has to be burdened with all the underlying information that reality consists of. To wit, my game concept would be much easier if it was simplified.

Naturally, I do not want to compromise the real feel of the game, but the essence of the game is the story. Shedding the mathematics and making the story more central is what I want. That said, I want the story to be realistic even with magic and other fantasy elements. So, let's see what we can do to make this less complicated.

Clearly, I have too many ability scores. What scores do you use in actual game play?

Definite-
1. Intelligence-used to solve problems and learn.
2. Charm-used in social interactions.
3. Athletics-used in various physical trials.
4. Perception-used to assign value to sensory input.

Possible-
5. Reflexes-used to determine is character avoids damage/spell effect. (Question-wouldn't perception or athletics do the same thing?)
6. Health-physical health (Question-wouldn't Athletics work as your physical health, thus subtracting would diminish your ability? Ditto for mental/stun attacks on Perception)

Using the four scores from the Definite section only, we can see a game mechanic that is both simplified and effective. Any skills would ADD to the base ability(i.e., the dice are added).

Originally, I thought 3d6 would be an average human score in each of these ability scores, but I now believe 5d6 is a better representation. Thus, losing a dice of perception when stunned would be more palatable.
The 5d6 average would clearly give more variations and thus represent the underlying complexity more effectively.

To start, a player would get 5d6 in each of their four abilities, plus one of the following kits:

1. Exceptional Slummer-8d6 to spread among their abilities, a set of poor quality clothes, and a poor quality weapon.
2. Merchant's child-6d6 to spread among abilities, and 200 silver pieces for equipment.
3. Lord's offspring-4d6 to spread among abilities, and 600 silver pieces for equipment.
4. Wealthy child-2d6 for abilities, and 1800 silver for equipment.

Higher starting amounts would mean possible servants and hirelings. Naturally, the GM would have to present the viable possibilities available in the locale they create, but the possible kits would all be related to the world/story in an integral way. Adding previous vocations or previous associations in kits is a great way to add back story. The possibilities are in no way limited to the choices above. Certainly, there have been entire books written on possible character kits for other gaming systems. The question is only what the GM will allow for the story being told.

The equipment list from the previous posting is still mostly valid, though I plan to make much more of issues of quality in my own campaign.

So what about skills? I have never met anyone whose skills outstretched their abilities, so I suggest that the ability score be the limiting factor on skill growth. The previous list in this blog is pretty comprehensive, but there is not much use in the added complexity. The new skill format is pretty simple:

Sword use (Athletics) xd6, where x is the level of the skill learned. x cannot exceed the level of the relevant ability or intelligence, whichever is higher. I will rework the earlier skills post later, so that players will have a list.

Another major change is making skill growth story related. To improve a skill, characters must find the means (trainer, money, books, materials, etc) and work out training in the story. It can be as simple as applying the training of a weapons master in combat, but the GM awards/rewards characters skill advancements based on their actions. So, there is no accumulation of experience or development points. Instead, the player incorporates the characters development in the story through the character's actions. If the character joins a wizard's guild, then spell training is more likely than if the same character joined a dojo. The GM has built a world with centers of power controlled by certain groups. For the characters to gain power, they will need to interact with these groups. Tricks of the trade have to be learned from people in the trade, etc.

Thus, skill opportunities and the back story add another level of complexity to the character creation process. Taking the four kits listed above, now add different learning opportunities. Let's say their are four main religions in the place of origin for these characters. Each religion would provide a different set of cultural biases and different learning opportunities. A religion based on death would likely have learning opportunities for identifying/using poisons, for instance. The overall culture might be militant, providing weapon training to all characters, but the poison training would only be available to members of the death-based religion.
In some of the most metropolitan cities in the GM's world, there could be multiple sources to learn part or all the possible training for a skill. Knowledge is power, and there are no public libraries. Characters will have to bargain to gain knowledge.

Spells and such. Learning spiritual rituals or arcane spells is just another skill. Like all tasks, the more skill you have will help you be more successful. Each ritual or spell has to be learned separately. The target score for the skill role will vary depending on circumstrance, so it is good to have higher skill on the more useful tasks. Failure is common in both types of spellcasting, which is why characters spend so much time and attention to improving their chances of success through their actions. While the chance of casting any spell is variable, the result is more stable. To simplify spellcasting, the magic formed is limited and not a stream of focus. Once cast, the magic is whole and the caster has no ability to grow or enhanse the magic without casting another spell. Thus, the variance is in the casting, ranging from backfiring failure to overwhelming success. The highest percentages being either failure or success, with success being the standard, expected outcome of the spell.

As each ritual is individual to the spirit it is directed at, and each arcane spell is individual to the mage's mind who first discovered it, learning spells and rituals can be a unique process each time it is done. Once learned, the caster may cast it any time they like, as often as they have the means to do so.

That is rough sketch of where I am taking this. As always, feel free to comment!