|
Musings
Nov 26, 2014 23:46:12 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 26, 2014 23:46:12 GMT 1
I think I actually prefer D&D's initiative system, though I vastly prefer the simplicity of Savage Worlds overall. Specifically, I like the fact that your agility/reflexes/whatever directly affect how fast you move in a given turn (though a roll of 1 is a roll of you're-going-last regardless, in my experience). SW is a lot more utterly completely random - there are two Edges you can take, to...
... Okay. Let's back up, as Prof. Cinders at the very least is likely reading this going "What the hell is she talking about?". In Savage Worlds, the system we use here at TSG, initiative in combat is determined by a deck of cards - higher card = earlier turn. In D&D and most other systems, you roll a dice and add a number to it (agility, reflexes, I forget exactly - I've only played a very little of this...). In Savage Worlds there are two Edges - one that lets you draw two cards per round and take the highest, and one that means if you draw a card below a six, you keep drawing more cards until you get one above a six.
I think I may prefer the initiative whereby you roll a dice (random) and add a number - the fast-moving rogue is probably going to be moving before the tank, and the way I see it that's realistic... and not, really, that much simpler than SW. In SW, may I remind you, you've got to look at the numbers, the suit of cards, *and* keep an eye out for Jokers. At least once all the maths is done in D&D you have a simple... number.
EDIT: Is this how new systems are formed?
|
|
|
Post by Mankoi on Nov 27, 2014 0:06:41 GMT 1
I think it's how house rules are formed. I'll also point out that in SW you have to have a deck of cards on hand to do initiative, which you don't use for anything else. So it also just complicates things by tossing in an extra item, when you use dice for most everything else.
|
|
|
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 27, 2014 0:08:47 GMT 1
I think if you have enough house rules they make their own system.
Actually, cards are used for various other things - even if I house ruled them out of initiative, they're used for encounters and the like. I suppose an easy table could be drawn up (even just replace the suits with numbers 1-4 and roll a d4) to remove them completely, save lugging them around with me.
I like the simplicity of Savage Worlds, but... I think I can think of a few places where I could write something I'd like better.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 27, 2014 11:35:58 GMT 1
Post by JaccusRed on Nov 27, 2014 11:35:58 GMT 1
I go back and forth on initiative I always felt like it didn't really account for speed or agility well in most systems in that it's more or less irrelevant in long combats and doesn't change the rate of attacks but I do think the cards are needlessly complicated.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 27, 2014 12:00:27 GMT 1
Post by Kairo on Nov 27, 2014 12:00:27 GMT 1
The D&D way of using initiative is better in my opinion, since it takes into account your Dexterity modifier. So, if someone has 18 DEX, they get a +4 to initiative, +1 for every 2 points above 10. Then you have other feats a character might pick, like Improved Initiative, which I think is another +6, making a total of +10, and can be taken from first level by any character, though not sure if there's a DEX prerequisite. You can get a quick and easy big bonus which simulates a fast character's ability to react faster in combat.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 27, 2014 12:27:08 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 27, 2014 12:27:08 GMT 1
I've got a couple of ideas for improvements to SW. I think l'm just going to give up and write my own system... mostly identical to SW, more than likely, but there are a few giant areas I hate (MAGIC).
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 28, 2014 22:04:37 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 28, 2014 22:04:37 GMT 1
Apologies for the double post, but I've been thinking about the experience system. See, in my experience GMing, the SW experience system with Advances is horribly confusing - Cinders, if you're reading this, just smile and nod. I'll explain it later. Point is, there's *way* too much stuff to buy in D&D type things for it to be anything besides confusing to a newbie. But... well, the SW system, in addition to having to explain what the hell an advance is and what you do with it anyway... it's somewhat limiting, at least in my opinion. I can really only give 1, 2 or 3 experience - ideally 2, or you level up way the hell too fast.
What if we multiplied experience gains, and costs, by ten? Say, an Edge costs 50, a new skill costs 50, a skill point costs 25. You gain 20ish per session - or per story segment in the case of forum-based roleplay, which is why the main plot haven't had any experience yet - and I can give a small handful of experience as a bonus without breaking everything.
Opinions?
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 28, 2014 22:13:54 GMT 1
Post by JaccusRed on Nov 28, 2014 22:13:54 GMT 1
Sounds reasonable.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 28, 2014 22:56:52 GMT 1
Post by darky on Nov 28, 2014 22:56:52 GMT 1
sounds reasonable here
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 28, 2014 23:00:43 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 28, 2014 23:00:43 GMT 1
It's basically the same as regards to how often you get to buy new Edges... just hopefully a bit less confusing. So far people seem to like it though
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 29, 2014 19:16:53 GMT 1
Post by Kairo on Nov 29, 2014 19:16:53 GMT 1
Note in advance, going into specifics in this, so Cinders some of this might not make much sense.
So, instead of an advance, we get points to spend. I can see that being less confusing I suppose. Though there's still the limited options of what to spend it on, but we can't really do much about that without testing and essentially making a new system.
Also, that means a possible change for ranks, since those are a requirement for some edges, and the fact that you can only add to one attribute per rank till legendary.
What would you think is too fast? The game can still go on past 'legendary' rank, and probably will. Its just the players are usually given something like more responsibilities, the upkeep and wellbeing of an area, for example. This according to the book, since they have much more influence in the world than less powerful adventurers.
Now, Children of Power have a fair amount of influence anyway, so being legendary wouldn't make too much of a difference, other than our stats and abilities would be better, so you'd need to throw tougher things at us to hurt us. That's something which as a GM you'll have to figure out how to work with eventually.
Also taking into consideration our magic, which is a completely separate system to experience, and that changes the balance of the game even more, and there are no specific requirements for it(we're aware of), which makes it an oddity.
My point in this is saying we'll eventually end up in a high powered game, during which stats don't mean a whole lot past a certain point, and neither does experience. Lots of things become very abstract, and purely down to the GM's judgement, based on what should happen, or perhaps more importantly, what might be a cool thing to happen.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 29, 2014 20:50:35 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 29, 2014 20:50:35 GMT 1
Could always say "Can't have more than one attribute every [x] points" as a new rule to reinstate, and the [x] would be... however many you need for a rank upgrade, multiplied by ten?
And as for too fast, I mean one advance per session, which if I gave out bonus XP the way I want to, even at 1 per event, would easily happen! Remember CoP itself is going to last for eight Verses of the prophecy -- more than enough time to hit Legendary...
And tougher things? .... Remember that Old Domain that Ronan abseiled into? Trust me, I can give you tougher things if you want! [/evil]
CoP magic system will remain unchanged, 5 EXP per level works quite nicely the way I've been dishing it out. And if I want you to level up more... well, I can give out 30,40,50, whatever EXP per session. Mainly the reason for the numerical change is spending numbers of experience points is less confusing than trying to explain what an Advance is anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Prof. Cinders on Nov 30, 2014 2:40:09 GMT 1
Can we please just assume that if I don't get something, I'll look it up? Being singled out is weird.
|
|
|
Post by Kairo on Nov 30, 2014 3:03:22 GMT 1
I understand the reason for changing to numerical form instead of advances. Just making clear what the implications of that would be, and which other changes would need to be made. Personally, I think the change is unnecessary, it would get more complex by doing this than writing a simple, clear summary of what an advance is, what you can spend it on, when that might be all that's needed. This is why the experience spend table, including ranks, is on the character sheets we've used before.
A suggestion, you can take it or leave it. Instead of bonus exp perhaps award extra bennies? According to the book we've all been stingy with them anyway. That would give us more opportunities to do epic stuff, and less likely to get splattered.
I know you can throw tough stuff at us, just be prepared that players are a resourceful bunch, then if we go to the Old Domain at any point, I'm assuming we will, we'll need to be, haha.
My point was that, even if we continue along the exp rate we're at now, we'll still hit legendary way before verse 8. But that doesn't matter too much, because hitting legendary is less like the end of a game, and more changing the rules slightly, that's all. We can still advance past legendary, there are thingies for that in the book, and if you look around the savage worlds forums, maybe someone's drummed up extra rules for beyond it, if any might take your fancy.
Also, magic is your thing to play with, wasn't suggesting you change that at all, just commenting on how it changes the game's balance somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 30, 2014 8:55:38 GMT 1
My players have never, ever finished all their Bennies. And if they're running short... I can always give more out.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 11:11:23 GMT 1
Post by thalslaw on Nov 30, 2014 11:11:23 GMT 1
Heh. I've come across a great many systems. I'll boil down my thoughts to two things.
1) The important thing to remember about gaming systems is keeping it fun. Some people find it fun to multiply up through one's quickness modifier to *prove* that sonic the hedgehog gets 100 hits to that mech's 1. Others like the inherent randomnity of combat and like 2d6 + very small modifier, if at all for a lot of cost. Another point is that, in Savage Worlds, you could use the... redundant data you're given... to mean more things.
I'm about to slip into point 2, but I'll try and stay on topic. By redundant data I mean the cardsuit. It's perfectly reasonable to have two hits land at the same time, but if hearts meant you got +1 parry to your location as you move, clubs meant +1 attack, diamonds +1 move, spades +1 dmg...
2) remember not to overcomplicate a system. Otherwise you end up with what's colloquially known as "Chart"master or even FATAL. Rolemaster (the foremost chart-lookup exercise) is solved using only a pair of dice, yes, but then you roll another, and another, and another... just to permute through all the imagery of exactly what happens. Though in some terms, that's elegant. It works when you've got one person fighting another, and it gets it 'right'. On the other hand, if you're dealing with miniatures... say about 30 of them, and someone lets off a shotgun across their heads... yeah. That's 30 rolls of the dice x (scattershot, so about 5) x (2 barrels) x (average of about 3 for open ended rolls that mean some shots go inside their eye or back into the shooter's rectum via a passing coconut laden swallow.* A European swallow, I hasten to add)... in excess of 1800 rolls of a simple d10, not including critical lookup tables. Which is why there's different systems designed to do different things. Mostly gen 1 games are ones that adhere to randomnity; old-style D&D, 1st and second edition. Gen 2 are skills-based, not class based; SW and, with next to no tweaking, Rolemaster. Gen 3 as Old Worlds of Darkness for being principally story driven and 'very' loosely diced...
This is just me rattling on, but it strikes me that people haven't found the perfect system yet. I should know, having house-ruled RM to death. And RM was originally a D&D houserule set!
*This really can happen.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 12:56:06 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 30, 2014 12:56:06 GMT 1
Wait, Thalslaw is telling me not to overcomplicate a system? Guys! Guys! His account has been hacked!
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:00:20 GMT 1
Post by thalslaw on Nov 30, 2014 13:00:20 GMT 1
*Bursts out laughing* Yes, actually. I'm a simple person and I tell everyone that. Why does nobody ever believe me? *Throws hands in the air, seeming to give up with it all.*
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:04:50 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 30, 2014 13:04:50 GMT 1
Actually, I think a numerical system WOULD be simpler than dealing with Advances. But it'd also allow me to expand on things - in a system with more "normal" magic rules, for example, you could buy spells - and city-ending fireballs could cost more than just one advance to buy, without turning a system I don't really like and making it worse.
Just a thought. Not changing the forum. Yet.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:07:42 GMT 1
Post by thalslaw on Nov 30, 2014 13:07:42 GMT 1
Eh, I've not come across a magic system I've liked. I managed Alchemy in Thalslaw-Style Rolemaster, but that got quickly broken by Kairo. It couldn't cope with jumping universes.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:18:09 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 30, 2014 13:18:09 GMT 1
*shrug* From what little I've encountered of D&D's, I kinda liked it... except it had *way* the hell too many spells.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:50:45 GMT 1
Post by thalslaw on Nov 30, 2014 13:50:45 GMT 1
Yeah, like 30 per level for OD&D. Rolemaster is worse. It reinvents spell lists so many times, you couldn't learn them all. Chi, Chakra, Ka, Mana, Tass, Golems, Candles, Cauldrons, Mind, Channeling, Channeling fire, Essence spell lists, Necromancy, Nature ways... even roads had their own spell list.
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 13:53:10 GMT 1
Post by Maiyrhia on Nov 30, 2014 13:53:10 GMT 1
... Charming.
(Now take a look at the new announcement in the TSG area, mum's waiting on feedback.)
|
|
|
Musings
Nov 30, 2014 14:04:48 GMT 1
Post by Kairo on Nov 30, 2014 14:04:48 GMT 1
The thing with D&D is that in the lore, wizards make spells to do specific things, useful tasks, that sort of thing. These then become part of your average wizard's repertoire, who then make various 'improvements' on previous wizards' work. e.g. a giant disembodied hand, instead of slamming down on an enemy, instead uses thumb and index finger to flick an enemy away. (This has actually happened in one of the recent Drizzt books I'm reading)
I suppose it comes down to what exactly you want the system to do. Savage worlds is fast and fairly simple to play, so it's ideal for beginners, but it lacks a lot of depth other systems have, which add to their own system's experience. Take D&D and its countless rulebooks for example. You don't need to use all 50+ rulebooks, just the ones which do what you want it to do. It has a lot of versatility in that way.
Personally, the magic system I've liked most is this one, because it's freeform and can do what you want it to do, without reading through tons of rulebooks to cast a simple 'I took a dip in a lake, dry me off now' spell. (It's called Prestidigitation, and is a 0 Level spell in D&D, useful as all hell btw.) Then again, if you want to do something funky and aren't sure how it would work mechanically, in D&D you have the advantage of someone's probably already made a spell to do that, or something similar.
I had a idea one time to do a roleplay using Avatar: The Last Airbender as a basis, it would use a very similar magic system to this, because a lot of what you can do is freeform. The same thing would work with something like Eragon, another thing I had an idea for. It's a very fluid magic system, though it would have a couple of funky mechanics because of how the Ancient Language works. That said, I'm not sure I'd be able to do it justice, I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by Mankoi on Dec 22, 2014 5:27:12 GMT 1
Another thought on the system that comes to me after watching Nightcrawler get beaten senseless by insects he was supposed to plow through: The worse you are at fighting, the more likely you are to ace your fighting roll. The insects only have a d4 in fighting... which means that they have a one in four chance of acing a fighting roll. It's not enough to make it better to have a worse fighting roll, of course, but it is a weird quirk...
|
|