The good and the bad of RPG systems

[Joose]

Being an Epic Nerd recently, ive been thinking a lot about the nuts and bolts of p&p RPG's. Specifically rules stuff, and how they quite often dont seem to work out how the people who made them intended.

Ive been putting together rules of my own (as you know) for a fairly light hearted Superhero themed thing, and im getting close to a point where they can start being playtested. What has just occured to me as something that might be a good idea is to get some thoughts from you guys about what you do/dont like about the rules systems of the games we play here. I can then use that to try and avoid making the same mistakes here.

TAKE NOTE: Im only taking about the rules here, not the setting.

To kick things off, heres some of my thoughts. This is not a comprehensive list, its just some highlights:

SLA

Good: For the most part, its simple. Nearly everything is worked out through the same basic dice roll: 2d10+ skills and modifiers. 11+ is a win, 21+ does bonus win.
Bad: unfortunately, its kinda easy to break, even if you are not trying. Its trivial (and almost the standard) to have starting characters with skills near to or at 10. Trouble is, this leaves a lot of situations where the only real way to fail at your speciality is to roll a double 1 (autofail). In fact, its *so* easy to make rather kick ass starting characters, and then so slow to improve them any, that character progression is almost entirely down to the gear. Plus, the more you do improve your characters skills over time, the more obviously limiting the dice roll system is. "My shooting skill is 19. Unless im firing whilst running, in a blizzard, at night, one handed, at a fly that is in cover, im only going to miss on a double 1". Also bad, and in my eyes is one of the worst things an RPG rule system can do: The fluff doesnt match the rules. Not even slightly. I know its not the only game to fall down on this point (40k for example is *much* worse), but its the worst at this of the three we play regularly.

Overall, I like the aim of SLA (to try and keep things simple and fast moving), but I *really* dont like the implimentation of that idea.

D&D

Good: theres a lot of stuff there, so theres a lot of flexability in character creation etc. A lot of the complication that is there is during down time. For example, working out a character/levelling is fairly complex, but once you are in the game most of the hard stuff has been done already and is written on your character sheet (what you need to roll to damage someone, for example).
Bad: Its really not simple, and a lot of the complication seems to be there just for the sake of being more complicated. Im not, for example, convinced that having a dozen different sized dice really adds anything other annoyance. Also, I hate class systems. Its an entirely artifical way of balancing your game, and it limits what people can do with their characters. If I want my guy to be a monk that uses plate mail, has a pet dire badger and has learnt a couple of spells, I should be able to do that, damnit.

SR

Good: The flexability. You can make pretty much any character that makes any kind of sense for the setting. They may be gimped compared to a character made by someone who is specialising, but if thats what you want to do, you can. The dice rolling system is also incredi-flexable: shite characters have a chance at doing near impossible things (thanks to edge rolls and "exploding" 6's), and things scale in difficulty far smoother than that of a fixed number of dice system.
Bad: By christy-fuck is it complicated. Massively and often needlessly complicated. At least some of that can be put down to the dice roll system, making it both its greatest strength and its biggest flaw. I think the core idea is sound. The biggest problems with it are the fact that modifiers change the amount of dice you roll (meaning you rarely roll the same number of dice twice), and for some reason a lot of people find the average number of hits you get with a given dice pool to be hugely counter intuitive. For example, people often roll 6 dice, get 3 hits (above average) and their immediate gut reaction is that they have done badly.

What im trying to do is take the SLA idea of having basically one kind of dice roll does everything, the D&D thing of trying to get most of the complicated bits done during downtime to keep it simple when you are actually playing, and a fixed version of SR's dice rolling system. Im attempting to fix the dice rolls by making it so that all situational modifiers (things like cover, or being stunned, or taking time to aim) affect the result of a roll, rather than the number of dice used. Im also toying with the idea of changing what constitutes a "hit" on a d6. For example, making it 4, 5 or 6 would mean an overall higher number of hits (which would make people feel better) as well as allowing you to change to some other kind of dice if you so wished (it would make it 50/50 for any dice to be a hit, so you could use d10, with 6-10 being a hit). The only downside with that would be that it could make a critical hit/miss system a bit more complicated.

Any thoughts from you guys? What do you think are the SLA/SR/D&D strong and weakpoints? What would you do to try and fix them?

[FatherJack]

D&D is the only one I really know well enough to comment on.

If I want my guy to be a monk that uses plate mail, has a pet dire badger and has learnt a couple of spells, I should be able to do that, damnit.

You can of course pick more than one class, and a Monk/Fighter/Ranger would kind of fit your description, though wearing metal gauntlets would rather prohibit you from using bare-fisted attacks - perhaps quite rightly so. There are a lot of combinations in there, all of which differ depending when you select the classes and there are a lot of new "classes" both on the web and in some of the computer games which are basically auto- or plan-selected multi-class builds.

My criticism of the system in general is that the progression is very slow, many multi-class builds don't have you selecting the additional classes until you're pretty experienced, some not even until the highest levels. This means you're always building towards the character you want rather than playing the character you want, so are stuck with a basic class to begin with which can't even attempt to do some of things you had planned for them. Something where you can pick all the talent trees you want to explore at the start, then build them up by adding/boosting skills as you progress would be better.

Don't get me wrong, I like the existing system - from a roleplaying perspective it's great to spend a lot of time as a level 1 character as you begin to see them not as a low-level number, but actually significantly powereful compared to your standard man in the street. It contrasts sharply with the sort of progression you get in a computer RPG, where you level up just by walking down the first street while all the while tripping over gold coins and weapons.

As for the dice, I'm not sure they work well as systems, but the tactile feel of all the different ones is great fun - something equally true of the fistful you get to roll in SR.

[Dog Pants]

A lot of what you wrote up there makes me uncomfortable, but I can't actually find fault with it. SLA has a notoriously buggy system, and if it weren't for the splendid background would have probably died on its arse soon after release. It has potential, but you hit the basic issues (good and bad) right on the head. D&D I don't find as bad as you do. Different shaped dice don't bother me, and I actually think they add an easy way to control the random element. The inconsistency is what bothers me - roll over something with a D20, roll under something else with a D10, there's no standard roll as a point of reference for anything. 3.5 is an improvement on 2nd ed though, with AC being overhauled and THAC0 being ditched. Shadowrun still baffles me. I never liked the system, and it's looking like I never will. The inconsistency from D&D moves from the type dice used to the amount of dice used, with no clear logic to me of how they worked out what you need to roll. Admittedly this is probably more down to laziness than incomprehensibility, but I just don't feel inclined to learn it.

Other systems of interest:

Rifts - Vast amounts of character classes, even less standardised than D&D. You can see it's heavily D&D influenced, but made even more complicated. The variety is what makes Rifts great, but a year or two ago I tried to start a game of it and gave up because of the difficulty of character creation due to the sheer amount of weird stats.
D100 based systems - Probably a sort of precursor to SLA, you have percentage skills and roll a D100 under your skill to see if you make the test. I think the 40K games use something similar. D100 based games have a lot going for them, greatest of which being that a player can very easily gauge their skill at something. They also suffer from SLA's problem of being easy to break though through rigid adherence to the dice structure. I seem to remember that I rather liked how Deathwatch dealt with things, thinking about it. The difficulty system seemed very good. Eclipse Phase was another system using this, and it also felt very solid. In the case of that game though, character creation was a huge pain in the arse. Completely impenetrable. Does Vampire use something similar? I can't quite remember, but I do remember the basic system being quite solid, even if I hated the setting.

So thinking about everything I've played, the percentage system seems to fit easiest with me. It's too unwieldy though - increments of 5% are easily enough to have an accurate, granular skill system. What's 100 divided into 5% increments? 20. So there you have it, the future is 1-20. Whether you want linear odds (D20) or a bell curve (2D10) is up to you.

On a different note, I like classes. They give you a good starting point for your character and boundaries to your progression. Without it you see far too many characters with cross-skillsets or who don't have any real purpose. You see not many people will sacrifice combat ability for something more specialised, so you end up with a team full of fighters who have some vague secondary abilities which aren't all that good. Nobody has much in the way of direction. Of course you could argue that it's the player's fault for not being imaginative when creating their character, but it happens far too much for that to hold water with me - it's just human nature to try to make up for deficiencies. Conversely, your example about the Monk in D&D is entirely possible (from what I remember of the rules), you just have to take a few feats and sacrifice some abilities. If you don't want to do it because it makes your character weaker, then you have to ask yourself why you do want to do it - to make your character interesting, or to make your character powerful.

[Joose]

if it weren't for the splendid background would have probably died on its arse soon after release.

Very this. It speaks volumes of the setting that I do like SLA as much as I do. The actual rules as written are fairly balls. It has the odd position for me of having one of the best settings of any rpg I've seen, combined with one of the worst rules systems I've ever seen.

D&D I don't find as bad as you do. Different shaped dice don't bother me, and I actually think they add an easy way to control the random element. The inconsistency is what bothers me - roll over something with a D20, roll under something else with a D10, there's no standard roll as a point of reference for anything.

It's not that it bothers me so much as doesn't add anything. Not sure what you mean by controlling the random element?
The inconsistency I absolutely agree with, and it's a pitfall I definitely want to steer clear of. I actually think SR is worse in a way, as it's *almost* consistent. At least with D&D you expect everything to be done it's own way.

Shadowrun still baffles me. I never liked the system, and it's looking like I never will. The inconsistency from D&D moves from the type dice used to the amount of dice used, with no clear logic to me of how they worked out what you need to roll. Admittedly this is probably more down to laziness than incomprehensibility, but I just don't feel inclined to learn it.

What exactly is it that you don't get? Is it the inconsistent dice pool sizes (which I agree is a problem, but is all caused by modifiers changing the number of dice rather than the result, and is easily fixed), or is it the target numbers themselves (which is a bigger problem, not sure there much can be done about that)?

Rifts - Vast amounts of character classes, even less standardised than D&D. You can see it's heavily D&D influenced, but made even more complicated. The variety is what makes Rifts great, but a year or two ago I tried to start a game of it and gave up because of the difficulty of character creation due to the sheer amount of weird stats.

Rifts has a similar problem for me to the problems I have with SLA. I liked the setting, but the rules are badly made. Trouble is, the setting isn't *as* good, and the rules are even worse. The sheer amount of variety is good though, that I liked.

So thinking about everything I've played, the percentage system seems to fit easiest with me. It's too unwieldy though - increments of 5% are easily enough to have an accurate, granular skill system. What's 100 divided into 5% increments? 20. So there you have it, the future is 1-20. Whether you want linear odds (D20) or a bell curve (2D10) is up to you.

If it wasn't for the flexibility you need to do a superhero game, I would agree with you. However, to do a superhero game, you need to be able to model weaklings, normal people and godlike powers with the same system. Percentage or 1-20 systems are just never going to give that, they are always either going to be skewed massively to one end, or make it so there is no gradual progression, things "jump" too much.

On a different note, I like classes. They give you a good starting point for your character and boundaries to your progression. Without it you see far too many characters with cross-skillsets or who don't have any real purpose. You see not many people will sacrifice combat ability for something more specialised, so you end up with a team full of fighters who have some vague secondary abilities which aren't all that good. Nobody has much in the way of direction. Of course you could argue that it's the player's fault for not being imaginative when creating their character, but it happens far too much for that to hold water with me - it's just human nature to try to make up for deficiencies. Conversely, your example about the Monk in D&D is entirely possible (from what I remember of the rules), you just have to take a few feats and sacrifice some abilities. If you don't want to do it because it makes your character weaker, then you have to ask yourself why you do want to do it - to make your character interesting, or to make your character powerful.

I think your second sentence there holds the core of why I dont like classes. I don't *want* to have boundaries on my progression. Its my character, I want to develop them how I want. Ok, my monk example might not be the best, my d&d knowledge isn't all that great, but I do know that there are, for example, classes that can't use certain kinds of weapons. Why? If it were a real person, not a "character", they would not let the fact that they do magic stop them picking up an axe, if that were the only thing to hand. There is no logical reason why a person who is class X couldn't learn a skill from class Y, but the only way you can do that is multi classing. That just seems like being punished for wanting to step outside what the person coming up with the game thought of. If you want to let people of one class use stuff from another class, you have to start wondering why you have classes in the first place.

Basically, I like coming up with character concepts no one else has done before. Not because they are more powerful, just because something new is more interesting than Mr A N Other, the generic paladin. Classes limit how creative you can be, and to my mind anything that limits player creativity needs a damn good reason to be there. I don't think there is a good reason for classes.

I find your idea about them adding direction interesting, now I think about it more. Most d&d classes are primarily combat classes, especially at low levels, because d&d is mostly about the combat. The other games (which tend to have a lot more investigation type elements and therefore more need for non combat characters) *don't* have classes. And yet they have spawned things like my current SLA character (useless in a fight) and Romans SR doctor, or even Grimmies Nikolai, who is mostly about transportation/observation, with the combat stuff he is good at being vehicular, something the other SR characters are not much use at. I'm not sure any more direction really is needed.

[Joose]

My criticism of the system in general is that the progression is very slow, many multi-class builds don't have you selecting the additional classes until you're pretty experienced, some not even until the highest levels. This means you're always building towards the character you want rather than playing the character you want, so are stuck with a basic class to begin with which can't even attempt to do some of things you had planned for them.

And that's what i don't like. You can take your character the way you want *eventually*.

Something where you can pick all the talent trees you want to explore at the start, then build them up by adding/boosting skills as you progress would be better.

Actually, that gives me an interesting idea. An idea that doesn't really fit particularly well with my superhero game, but could be good for something later. Hmmm.... /makes a note

Don't get me wrong, I like the existing system

Actually, that makes me think I should probably make something clear here: I'm being intentionally nitpicky. It's not that I don't like these games. I absolutely do, I'm just focussing on the bits of them that I really don't like or really do like, specifically. I want to try and steal the best bits whilst avoiding the worst.

[Dog Pants]

Okay, to put the classes thing another way, shouldn't the path you choose offer you some sort of advantage? The stuff I'm working on for packages in SLA is there to help specialise a character based on the role they choose, give them a little bit of something that makes them feel they made the right choice, and that they're always going to have an advantage at what they do over someone who supposedly only dabbles, but does it better. I've been on the receiving end of that, it's a worse way to lose your character than combat death. Rather than think of them as restrictions, think of them as perks. Also, in D&D 3.5 you can do anything you want. You can choose any armour or weapon you want, train any skills you want. But as a mage wearing plate, you're going to find it very tricky to cast with a huge negative to your concentration rolls. I'm being picky now though, traditionally D&D just outright said "no, fuck off, you can't", and I always felt a bit cheated by that too.

Maybe there's a middle ground here with perk sets, rather than classes. Not that I think a class system would fit a superheroes game anyway, but I don't think they should be demonised across the board.

Ah, and the SR thing. It's the changing dice pools. The success ratings I get, they're just difficulties, I just never really found any logic behind what gets added together. It's no big deal, I just ask the GM.

[Joose]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I think actually it's not classes that bother me per-se. It class restrictions. Saying "because you have chosen this class, you get some nice things to make you a bit special" I don't have a problem with, it's "because you have chosen this class, these are the ways you shall be punished" that I don't like.

Although, if you are goin that way, and allowing multi classing, they become less like a class and more like a sort of "super perk".

Ah, and the SR thing. It's the changing dice pools. The success ratings I get, they're just difficulties, I just never really found any logic behind what gets added together. It's no big deal, I just ask the GM.

That's ok then. The way dice pools are calculated in SR is a bit mental at times. The rules as written for hacking are especially bad for this. I'm planning a much simpler, standardised system.

[FatherJack]

I suppose when designing a system, some logic has to be applied as to what makes sense. When the creator/DM can individually vet each player's build/plan to check it doesn't contain inconsistencies it's okay to allow them free rein over the skills they choose, but when it's a game system designed for anyone to pick up and play I guess there have to be inbuilt limitations to stop them occurring.

D&D classes are really just pigeonholes that the various abilities sit in, but it is restrictive in that in order to access some class-exclusive abilities you are required to spend at least a whole level of experience in that class. Sometimes that makes logical sense, but sometimes it doesn't. Apart from the fact you only have 20 levels in total in which to allocate your skills, you can also be penalised almost to the point of unplayability with certain combinations.

My understanding (which doesn't emcompass all rule sets and may well be in error) is that your L1 dude is a pretty stand-out-from-the-crowd guy, a L2 guy is twice as amazing and L3 three times up until your L20 who at 20 times more awesome than a L1 character, can go toe-to-toe with the most powerful characters in the lexicon and represents the absolute pinnacle of their archetype. As a result, since any further questing would just involve adding greater numbers or superlatives to the names of worthy foes, players are encouraged to retire their characters and start over with a fresh one. That has never felt particularly satisfying to me.

Anyway logically, a specialist Wizard who has spent every waking hour since childhood poring through tomes would end up as (at least one of) the most powerful wizards in the world. Should some hybrid monk/wizard who spend his formative years in face-punching school be able to cast the same highest-level spells this master wizard took years of study to learn?

However, what reason is there that my prince-of-the-guild-of-thieves rogue cannot even attempt to use the Perform skill, when his back-story might state that he began his career in the marketplaces of his hometown doing a little trick with three walnut shells and a pea?

I guess part of it is that D&D uses set lists of spells which are rated per-level, without always having incrementally-smaller alternatives for neophyte wizards. They might be able to cast a fire spray, but not a fire ball - not even a little one.

Without the classes constraining the abilities and with skill-based modifiers based on experience the player can allocate to what they choose, people would be free to build the character they wanted. They could cast increasingly better fire balls as they grow, but would have to sacrifice other things that wizards might be expected to be able to do, which with the D&D system are granted automatically whether you want them or not.

[Dog Pants]

I don't see an issue with making a choice at character creation and sacrificing some things for others. Preventing things for no logical reason I agree is bad, but I don't see why every character should have access to every ability. The negatives define a character more than the positives after all. I think our opinions on it only really differ slightly, we all seem to agree on the fundamentals of not needlessly penalising characters, but I'm sticking with my argument that by allowing a character to be everything you get too much temptation to specialise in nothing. Look how difficult it is to really define yourself with skills in SLA.

On a separate subject then, we have character progression. Experience and leveling is the old D&D method, which is all a little arbitrary but for me fits the setting. 90s games moved onto using experience to buy skills, and abandoned levels. I personally don't think this is much of an improvement as you lose the enjoyment of seeing your character progress, kind of like how when you're a kid you don't notice changes in your siblings, but aunts who haven't seen them for ages say "ooh, haven't you grown!". Not that I'm necessarily advocating level based systems, but I hardly thing the SLA/SR method is the holy grail of character progression. Some systems gave skill increases for successful use of those skills, which is easier to relate to but can be tricky to manage. It also removes most of the control over development that the player would otherwise have. I'm not really sure where the solution lies, but I'm curious to see how modern RPGs do things.

Lastly, backtracking to FJ's point about maxing out at level 20 in D&D. That's the biggest issue I have with the new system. I like a lot of the changes they've made, but that seems very strange. Not that many characters made it above that level anyway, but I had at least one 30+ character who fought giants and dragons in 2nd ed. It's nice to know you can one day be capable of these incredible fantasy feats, and as FJ says, reaching max level would be so anticlimactic as to make me want to stop playing them.

[buzzmong]

Moving away from paper based rule sets, in regards to levelling/experience, I'm semi sold on the "experience by doing" route that some RPG/MMO's use, Oblivion (and probably Skyrim) is a notable example.

It's not perfect and I do think there needs to be restrictions, either by classes or equipment based (tricky) so you can't actually level everything, enforcing the need to specialise, but it makes more sense in a progression terms rather than fixed improvment rates from reaching a new level.

[Joose]

Most modern RPG's are moving away from levels and towards the SLA/SR style system of spending experience to directly improve skills. I know what you mean about levels showing clear character progression though. Going from one level to a new level gives you a definite "I are now better!" feeling that you don't get with the gradual creep upwards of the more modern systems. Overall, I think level-less systems are better, but its not a case of it being better in every way. The positives to the change outweigh the negatives, but only a little.

I wonder if some sort of combination of the two systems might work? So you get XP, and you spend it on improving your skills a little (like SLA/SR), but when you go past certain XP earned milestones you go up a level, which gives you some other sort of advantages that you cant get through straight XP spend. Not sure what they would be exactly, but a few ideas that come to mind are certain perks/powers/abilities/whatever that have level restrictions, or "you have reached level X and you have skills Y and Z, so you get this special thing for free". Or maybe a hard cap on skills that is level based; at level one skills max out at 10, level two skills max out at 20, something along those lines.

That way you don't have the problem of straight levelling systems, where nothing happens for ages and then you suddenly shoot forward, but you do get the sense of achievement (and excuse to shout DING!) from the traditional level system.

Moving away from paper based rule sets, in regards to levelling/experience, I'm semi sold on the "experience by doing" route that some RPG/MMO's use, Oblivion (and probably Skyrim) is a notable example.

If it wasn't for how easy (and therefore tempting) it is to cheat, and play the system rather than use it properly, I would say that's the perfect system for computer based RPG's. Trouble is, even though ive never submitted to the urge to leave my character running into a wall and bugger off for lunch, I do still spend most of my time in Oblivion hopping about the place like an annoying FPS player, just because I know every jump makes me slightly better at jumping, and its so easy to just keep pressing jump.

If it wasn't for how much of a paperwork nightmare it would be, it would work brilliantly for p&p games, because the GM can intervene if someone is blatantly cheating. Trouble is I cant think of any way of implementing that which wouldn't result in what are essentially a bazillion XP tracks for each character.

[Dog Pants]

If it wasn't for how much of a paperwork nightmare it would be, it would work brilliantly for p&p games, because the GM can intervene if someone is blatantly cheating. Trouble is I cant think of any way of implementing that which wouldn't result in what are essentially a bazillion XP tracks for each character.

As it happens, I can. Sort of. It's a system based on the old Runequest/Call of Cthulhu system. That used the D100 percentage skills, and if you successfully used a skill (in an appropriate situation) in an adventure you got a tick by the skill. At the end of the adventure you rolled a D100 and if it scored over the skill level you advanced it (D6 points or something). It was nice because it offered natural progression in the skills you use more often, and the progression was inversely exponential, so it got harder to progress the better you got. It's still D100 though, which is unwieldy. Adjusting it for my in-head system, the percentage would sit behind the scenes, upping your 0-20 based skill every time you cleared a 5% point. Extrapolating on that, every (say) 20% could unlock a progression talent which lets you break out of the dry skill system for some interesting special moves. Doesn't fit your system as is (it's designed for the hybrid computer-based RPG I keep in my head), but it might be something you can adapt. The tracking was only as complicated as ticking a box.

[Dog Pants]

Oh, another thing is stat progression. Skills are expected to be easy to progress, but what about stats? In original D&D the only way to increase them was by magic items and wishes, but modern systems just let you get stronger or smarter with experience. I really don't think it fits, but it's tricky to come up with something that allows you to improve yourself without feeling like they're just 'big skills'. Also something to think about, random vs paid for with generation points. I think there are advantages to both - random can get you some lucky breaks, but can also gimp you, while buying stats always feels so sterile.

[buzzmong]

Depends what stats you're thinking of.

Intelligence isn't one I would have though that could go up without external help, whether it be via magic, a potion or in a sci-fi setting: surgery, hypnotic training, implants etc... but can obviously be temporarily put down due to drugs/potions/magic/being hit in the head... Mages for example aren't going to get more intelligent over time, they'll get wiser about magic as they get more experience using it but perhaps that should be a seperate stat or even skill (like Wisdom in D&D).

Whereas something like strength or dexterity are physical attributes which go up or down depending on what you're doing, or the training you do. Ie, a melee fighter swinging an axe is only going to get stronger (up to a point) as they carry, practice and use the weapon. As such, if the game permits downtime, there's no reason why a character couldn't hit the gym and buff up. By the same token, sitting on your arse and watching TV would see your strength drop over time.

A thief or similar will get better at being nimble and dexterous with his hands. Again, practice makes perfect.

Obviously such a variable stat system would be a pain to not only put into action, but to generally use and keep track of.

[FatherJack]

D&D gives you an extra stat point every 4 levels, if by stats you mean STR, DEX, etc.

There's enough random in the rolls for determining the success of actions, introducing an element of it into the way your character is built I think takes you even further away from making the one you want. Having a randomised range of numbers of points to spend or a randomised amount of improvement in your chosen area would be fine, but not a situation where you could conceivably not improve at all or be forced to develop your character in a new direction.

One way of removing the sterilty and also the rather bizzare way that you suddenly get better at level-up would be rather than choose skills once you've levelled, you choose them beforehand and slowly accrue points (and therefore proficiency) in them as you begin to master them. The idea being that you pick what you're training towards and see instant, if gradual, improvements. Additionally you could switch your training focus to another skill if you felt you were "good enough" at the first one, but with the option to continue where you left off later on.

[Joose]

Depends what stats you're thinking of.

Intelligence isn't one I would have though that could go up without external help, whether it be via magic, a potion or in a sci-fi setting: surgery, hypnotic training, implants etc... but can obviously be temporarily put down due to drugs/potions/magic/being hit in the head... Mages for example aren't going to get more intelligent over time, they'll get wiser about magic as they get more experience using it but perhaps that should be a seperate stat or even skill (like Wisdom in D&D).

I've heard this argument before, and although it didn't sit right with me, I could never put my finger on why. It's just hit me as I read that: you might not be able to actually increase your intelligence as such, but you can totally learn to use it better. It might not be as obvious or maybe as quick to change as something like strength, but if you got an average person and sat them doing puzzles all day, they would end up scoring higher on an iq test than if you got that same person and made them watch Big Brother marathons.

I'm torn on the subject of randomisation at character generation. I do think it can work well, as you can get some great role-play situations when control is taken away from you a little, plus it often makes more organic feeling characters. On the other hand, sometimes it can be very frustrating: I remember playing d&d way back when I was a kid, and I really liked the look of paladins. I didn't roll good enough stats for that though, so I ended up playing a fighter. End result being I got bored of the character before we had even finished the first game session.

I don't think random character stats are always bad, but I don't think I'll be going that way for this game. Might for others though.

[Dog Pants]

Here's a question to pose to you beardites. I've come to a decision point in my on-off systemworks regarding melee combat. I have two options:

A SLA-style system of rolling to hit with negative modifiers based on environment and the opponent's skill. Combatants attack in turn according to their initiative.

or

An initiative-less, single roll for the outcome of the pair's combat. Opposed rolls, with modifiers, with the winner striking a blow (assuming they make the base difficulty of the attack).

The second is a little unusual, and is the usurper to the first, but seems far more elegant on the surface. Ranged wouldn't change. It might cause more complications later though, such as multiple opponents and/or attacks. Do you peeps think it's worth pursuing though for the extra speed over a more typical system?

[Joose]

It sounds like it has potential to me. I assume things like one person being faster or slower would just be factored into the dice roll along with skill and situational things then? Multiple opponents etc may make complications, but I think the real difficulty will be when ranged and mellee mix it up. Still, I don't think that's an unfixable problem.

[Dog Pants]

I've got some ideas of how to overcome problems, but I liked the idea of the back and forth of melee being represented by something a bit more nebular than you-stab-I-stab. Melee doesn't work like that. Speed would be factored in by the fact that reactions and dexterity give inherent bonuses to melee. Ranged combat I was going to integrate like SLA does - all ranged attacks are worked out before (or after) any melee. Multiple attacks I was thinking using by letting the player split their skill into as many as they liked to represent inaccurate hacking vs targeted attacks, although this might make things more complicated again (bear in mind, though, that this is for my eRPG idea so it would be as simple as a pull down menu or radio button). If the other guys wins but hasn't split his attacks it's just a miss. Multiple opponents I was going to similarly horse a skill split - you have to 'attack' each opponent, so ganging up would be pretty nasty. Perks I'd put in would lessen this effect though, like shields offering a free second roll without splitting, or a skirmisher perk which lets you fight multiple opponents with less of a penalty.